From: jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov () Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux (several responses) Date: 7 Jul 1993 12:01:33 GMT
In article <1993Jul7.063319.10838@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>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.
>
Perhaps silly, but all you have to do is con a judge (who knows little
about computers & software) to rule on it, and it is no longer silly,
its a violation of civil law...