Re: GNU License, Again

[Alexander Terekhov]

none Byron Jeff wrote:
> 
> In article <4656BD51.742B702B@web.de>,
> Alexander Terekhov  <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> >
> >none Byron Jeff wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Good. Do you see that the extended code is a derivative of the original
> >> GPL code now?
> >
> >SCO/GNU postulatus 101.
> >
> >http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
> >(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)
> 
> That's apples and gorillas sir. The article you quote states that SCO
> thinks that any original code that has even been developed for Unix
> systems is a derivative and belongs to them. That far extends beyond the
> concept that if you take GPL code and extend that code, that the
> extension is a derivative.

Read it again.

> 
> >
> ><quote>
> >
> >GPL
> >
> >"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to
> >Sontag...
> >
> ></quote>
> 
> Not true. If you write an original piece of code that runs on a Linux
> system, There are no GPL rights imposed upon it.

Similarly, SCO doesn't claim that code which runs on UNIX system 
belongs to SCO.

> 
> OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole
> different matter.

Yeah, even if an "extension" is 100% original work and doesn't contain
any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it "extends"?

Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff.

regards,
alexander.