(hmm, Pine 4.10 seemed to choke on your From: line) On Wed, 17 May 2000, it was written:
> On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 03:54:40PM +0200, Maurizio De Cecco wrote: > > Erik Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > - Clause 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software. > > > > > > > > While using the GPL for libraries is conformant with this OSD > > > > requirement, we do not want the runtime linking of any GPL > > > > libraries to be required for conformance with our standards. > > > > The standard define the API, while the licence cover the implementation, > > right ? > > > > Should this then translate that the standard should include only library > > APIs for which > > at least one Open Source that is not GPL implementation exists ? > > > > Who is going to explain this to Mr. Stallman ? > > I do not think we can exclude GPL as an open source license. > And we should not exclude GPL-ed sources as reference implementations. > If we do, we do not have a kernel, as the Linux kernel is GPL. I quote from the kernel's COPYING file. | NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel | services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use | of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". | Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software | Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux | kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. | | Linus Torvalds
