From: keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 01:55:24 GMT
[ Arguments about linking in GPL'd libc stuff ... ]
So let's say one was to produce some proprietary code tested & linked
into the GPL'd libc. Yet not ship it as a full BINARY just as a
collection of .o files with a 'sh' executable install script that builds
and links the executable on the target GPL'd system? Then restrict the
distribution of *MY* .o files (Which are not guaranteed to be suitable
for any particular purpose :) ) under a licence.
Seems this would be the logical answer.
Many of the GNU arguments would not hold water in court. There are also
IMPLIED reasons for use. i.e. the sole purpose of using gcc/bison is
to produce a binary. Restricting use of this product to produce
proprietary work is ludicrous. That's like saying using a patented
copywrited lathe to produce a bearing, puts the bearing under the lathe
manufactures copyright. Or using an IBM keyboard to input my code puts
the results my code under IBM copywrites. Or even further putting a GPL
on the bearing itself and giving them away means I can't put the bearing
in a skateboard and sell it? Uh-Uh. The implied use of the tool/object
is for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of producing derivative works, and has NO
OTHER purpose. Makeing anything like that stand up in court would
involve buying a few Judges or something. Maybe in So. Cal though ...
:) :) :).
-- Keith Smith keith@ksmith.com 5719 Archer Rd. Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201 Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...