Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:54:21 -0600 From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <chad@shire.net> To: FreeBSD-questions <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence Message-ID: <5345D611-29E4-11D9-A439-003065A70D30@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <149.372eec36.2eb3ef92@aol.com> References: <149.372eec36.2eb3ef92@aol.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 29, 2004, at 1:10 PM, TM4525@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/29/04 12:38:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > db@db.net > writes: >> >>> The GPL and Linux don't care if you link into their system libraries, >>> they expect that which is why the system libraries are LGPLd > ... >> If I write a piece of code that uses a defined interface, it's >> utterly >> preposterous to argue that it is derivative from an *implementation* >> of that >> interface, since it could be used with *any* implementation of that >> interface. > Its equally "preposterous" for the GPLers to claim that anything that > works > with any O/S is owned by the owner of the OS as a "derivative work". > But > they do, and they will, because it suits them. It is not just the GPL folks. SCO is doing the same thing to IBMs code. Code totally removed from SCOs SysVR4 code is being claimed by SCO as a derivative work. I am not trying to open up a discussion on SCO. Just to point out that this phenomenon is not restricted to the GPL fanatics. Chad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5345D611-29E4-11D9-A439-003065A70D30>