From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux (several responses) Date: 7 Jul 1993 06:33:19 GMT
In article <STODGHIL.93Jul6091626@hel.cs.cornell.edu> stodghil@cs.cornell.edu (Paul Stodghill) writes:
>In article <9307060611.AA24791@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes
>
>[ Discussion of NeXT's desire to distribute the Objective-C front-end as
> proprietary software, and the FSF's objection. ]
>
> > Note that this is not a matter of copyrighting an interface. The .o
> > files that NeXT planned to release would have used one of the
> > (internal) interfaces of the GNU compiler, but that was *not* what the
> > FSF objected to. Our objection was because the use of these .o files
> > implied linking them with the GNU compiler--the program, not just an
> > interface.
>
>Make the following substitutions in the above quote,
>
> linking -> loading
> .o -> a.out
> GNU compiler -> Linux
>
>Now read it.
>
>Clearly, I'm putting words into RMS's mouth, but I don't believe that the
>conclusion that I draw (namely, that Linux specific versions of executables
>cannot be distributed, except under the conditions of the GPL) is too
>outrageous.
Outrageous? You flatter yourself.
If that is a valid interpretation then you are violating copyright laws
every time you commit a copyrighted bit of prose to memory.
Not outrageous, just silly.
-- floyd@ims.alaska.edu A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer Salcha, Alaska system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.