From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 19:54:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3340F16A4CE for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:54:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [166.70.252.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C3643D1D for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:54:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.247.57] (helo=[192.168.99.66]) by hobbiton.shire.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1CNcpL-000MTR-Jy for questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:54:24 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <149.372eec36.2eb3ef92@aol.com> References: <149.372eec36.2eb3ef92@aol.com> Message-Id: <5345D611-29E4-11D9-A439-003065A70D30@shire.net> From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:54:21 -0600 To: FreeBSD-questions X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.161.247.57 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chad@shire.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on hobbiton.shire.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:44:05 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on hobbiton.shire.net) Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD Licence X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:54:25 -0000 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