Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!mirror!necntc!necssd!harrison
From: harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Lotus 1-2-3 was compiled with GNU C compiler!?
Message-ID: <393@necssd.NEC.COM>
Date: 16 Jul 90 14:11:35 GMT
References: <17032@haddock.ima.isc.com> <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM>
Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX
Lines: 26

In article <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM>, jim@sco.COM (Jim Sullivan) writes:

> One can only hope that they screwed up, included part of the GNU source code,
> and will have to place the entire source code for Lotus into the General
> Public Licence!  Now that would be rich....:-)

As much as I disapprove of Lotus' sue-happy mentality, this illustrates
a concern I have always had about the GNU license.  It is too hard to
tell if something falls under the license!  For example, If I compile
a program and use printf() and yyerror(), has the virus-like license
attached itself to my code?  I think this could be a problem if a
case ever goes to court.

The FSF could ease the confusion associated with this issue by either:

1)  Allowing their runtime libraries to be freely ("really freely") used,
    as Borland did with their Turbo Pascal 1.0.

2)  Provide a list of functions that would cause a piece of software to
    be placed under the GNU licence.  This would allow someone to grep
    for these functions in their code to make sure their proprietary
    code does not violate the license.
-- 
Mark Harrison             harrison@necssd.NEC.COM
(214)518-5050             {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...