Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> In article <85zm453gjn.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <dak@gnu.org> 
> wrote:
> 
> >Defined interfaces are not usually considered to create copyrightable
> >entities as long as they don't contain sufficient creative content by
> >themselves.
> 
> This is interesting, because as I understand it the FSF claims that if
> I distribute code that only works with their libraries (because I use
> their interfaces), then I must distribute my code under the GPL even
> if I don't distribute their libraries.

They also claim that Microsoft's distribution of *vouchers* (think 
of a currency to buy service units for Suse Linux) containing zero 
lines of GPL'd code somehow requires permission from copyright 
owners in GPL'd code and makes Microsoft become a party to the GPL 
license (making Microsoft subject to GPL conditions/obligations 
regarding Linux code).

Moglen and his underlings at FSF ("GPL compliance engineering" LOL) 
and his personal "charity" firm SFLC is a bunch of morons fond of 
spouting legal nonsense as pro bono service to utter lunatic RMS
and his "philosophy" followers.

regards,
alexander.