[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs |
Date: |
06 Jul 2004 20:50:44 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > Which must be why they were able to force NeXT computers to open their
> > Objective C compiler,
>
> You mean Objective-C front-end? They should have simply used plain
> old C and the GCC (or whatever) as back-end, like Comeau C++.
Sure, but they didn't, and thus had to open the sources after the FSF
went after them. And your point was?
> <quote>
>
> * I am not distributing "one program", so GPL doesn't apply to me
> either.
>
> The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has
> only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is
> that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the
> other part.
>
> I say this based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago. The
> issue first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in
> two parts and let the user link them. Jobs asked me whether this was
> lawful. It seemed to me at the time that it was, following reasoning
> like what you are using; but since the result was very undesirable for
> free software, I said I would have to ask the lawyer.
>
> What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would consider
> such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh toward
> them. He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one program,
> rather than how it is labeled.
>
> So I went back to Jobs and said we believed his plan was not allowed
> by the GPL.
>
> </quote>
>
> He and his lawyer (Moglen, I guess) would have been laughed out of
> court with such silly "subterfuge" and "one part clearly shows the
> intention for incorporation of the other part" arguments.
Which must be why NeXT bowed to the pressure.
> > Motorola to open their signal processor
> > specific variant of gcc
>
> Details?
What for? Google for it if you want to. Since facts don't get you
out of denial, where is the point in bothering to dig up more facts?
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, (continued)
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/08
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Tim Smith, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/07
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Tim Smith, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/08
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/08
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/09
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/08
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/06