none Byron Jeff wrote: [...] > I did. Same opinion as the first time. The only differences are that SCO > is arguing a contractual link. In addition they are arguing that > 'licenses that covered all "methods" and "concepts" of operating > systems' belongs to them.
Their claim regarding methods and concepts is about disclosures such as "negative know-how" irrespective of embodiments (if any) in code. [...] > >> 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"? > > If you write a 100% code fragment that does not operate without the GPL > code base? Whether it can or can not operate without some other code is totally irrelevant. Software is protected as LITERARY work modulo AFC filtering. > How can that not be a derivative work? Easy. It doesn't contain any protected elements from the GPL'd work. Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
