Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> We have been discussing, in the main, a single computer program, > > the GCC compiler. > > No, we have not. We have been discussing a single computer program, > written from scratch, whose source code contains no part of the code > of GCC, but is written in a stylized way such that it may be bound > into a single executable also containing the rest of GCC and which > then will interoperate with the rest of GCC to carry out some function. > > I assert that the source code of this separately written part does not > fall under the copyright of GCC and may be distributed under any terms > the author wishes. > >> It DOESN'T mean that they can crack MS-Word and plug code for ODF into >> it. > > Please reread section (4): > (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “interoperability” > means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, > and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been > exchanged. > I do not believe that your interpretation is correct. Adding a plug-in > to an existing program appears to be the very exemplar of programs > mutually using exchanged information. > > > And it also only applies in the USA. > > The Berne Convention and the WIPO Copyright Treaty act as homogenizing > influences. But if you wish to regard my arguments as applying only to > the USA, that's fine with me. > >> Stop being so evasive. Courts understand that there is a thing "a >> program", as contrasted with "173 lbs. of programming" - it is coherent >> whole with well defined boundaries separating it from the rest of the >> universe, just as a novel is. > > <http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/originality-requirements.html> > The SFLC's own web site describes the abstraction-filtration-comparison > test used to determine copyright violation for computer programs. One of > the things that is filtered away is elements dictated by external factors: > [] the mechanical specifications of the computer on which a particular > program is intended to run; > [] compatibility requirements of other programs with which a program > is designed to operate in conjunction; > [] computer manufacturers’ design standards; > [] demands of the industry being serviced; and > [] widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry > > Notice the second item? Notice "operate in conjunction"? You are simply wrong > in your assumptions. > >> Extracting a piece of a program into a separate library file doesn't >> make it any less a part of that program. > > And you keep talking about extraction when no such thing has taken > place, if by extraction you mean copying. Studying a program to > learn how to interoperate with it and writing code which fits in is > not prohibited by US copyright law - the law specifically allows it. > >> You're [deliberately?] failing to distinguish between writing your own >> program and extending somebody else's. > > Because there is no distinction provided there is no copying. > >> If you do the second, you do it with the permission of the other program's >> copyright holder. > > No, you are completely wrong. You do not need permission from the other > copyright holder unless you copy. Copyright is about copying. US copyright > law explicitly protects interoperability with other programs. You are > inventing concepts to suit your purposes that simply do not exist in US > copyright law - their opposites do. >
That's funny. You're still talking about. What happened to Alan#s claim that the GPL was really easy to understand? -- In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss