Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!santra!sja From: sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Why I do not support GNU Message-ID: Date: 21 Oct 89 21:48:27 GMT References: <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <1989Oct18.080236.23848@rpi.edu> Sender: news@santra.UUCP Distribution: gnu Organization: Helsinki University of Technology Lines: 63 In-reply-to: bob@MorningStar.Com's message of 19 Oct 89 20:16:39 GMT In article bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses > bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright. > > You may have seen such an article, but it didn't express a complete > understanding of the GNU copyleft. There's a lot of that going around :-) Here is what I just "dragged up from" gnu.misc.discuss archive (NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OR INTENDED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ANYTHING! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!): > rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu writes: > >The FSF lawyer told me that distributing code which was designed to > >work only when linked with part of a GNU program would be considered, > >legally, as a subterfuge for distributing a modified program > >containing both that and the GNU program. So it would be covered by > >the general public license. > > This sounds like a `proprietary interface' argument. ``You must > follow the copyleft on all code that uses something other than the > standard (documented external) interface.'' Is this true? Was this (IMHO important) question settled? I think (NOT CERTAIN! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) I saw a similar claim, written by a member of FSF, made for GNU tools and libraries; namely that if a source file is designed to work only with a GNU tool or GNU library the source file falls under GNU copyright. Bison was, according to the best of my recollection, specifically mentioned as an example. I can't find the reference in the gnu.misc.discuss archives; it was probably somewhere else (possibly my imagination; MisInfPosNotInt.) I'll try to find it. Anyone else remember seeing anything like this? This quote does, IMHO, illustrate (THOUGH NOT PROVE!) the possibility I was making a reference to: To me, the reference I quote above seems to imply a (WARNING! FOLLOWING PHRASE MAY BE FOUND INFLAMMATORY BY SOME! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) proprietary programming interface. It was my understanding and personal conclusion (I may not be able to "drag something up" to support this) that FSF does no condone propritetary user interfaces. Are programming interfaces considered different? To reduce flames: The quote above may, to some, appear if I was presenting it as conclusive proof; this is not, however, neither explicitly nor implicitly intended. If the conclusion or information in the quoted article is incorrect, my conclusios based on it are most probably also incorrect. I may also be misinterpreting the quote; please read it and make your own conclusion. The quote may also be out of context but, to the best of my knowledge, is not (MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) I appear quite uncertain about many things above; after some of the recent articles here I won't say what "1 + 1" is in my opinion without a disclaimer of possible unintended misinformation. ++sja