From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:14:11 GMT
In article <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> In article <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with
> >their toolkits.
> Neither does the FSF.
Not for *some* of these toolkits, since the library license came out.
> What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL
> if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code.
"Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its
distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it.
> Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft
> used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or,
> rather, a derivative product of your code and their code).
"Used to".
Quite a long time ago.
Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require
a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it.
-- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. `-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään? 'U` Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.