🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Aug23.202305.24038@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:
>In article <CC7zn6.A6J@news.claremont.edu>, D Hosek <dhosek@jarthur.claremont.edu> wrote:

>>That's not what is being claimed by RMS and others in gnu.misc.discuss:
>>in particular, RMS has claimed that code that works only if linked with
>>GPL'd code is subject to the GPL (cf. the RIPEM controversy). If a
>>non-GPL'd function is available with the same interface, they'll allow
>>it.

>So, what you're saying is this:

>If I use a GNU library function that everybody supports (like the C++
><iostream.h> class functions), then I can still copyright the
>application. 

>But if I use a function that not everybody supports (like their
><Integer.h> class), I can't.

This is what I've gleaned from gnu.misc.discuss, yes. Now, if
you wrote a non-GPL'd version of the Integer.h classes, you'd
be OK (or if someone else did).

The particularly disturbing bit is that RMS & co. don't care
whether this usage is central to the program or not (in the 
case of RIPEM, the relevant code was optional, via #ifdef
statements. The program did not need GMP.

>Has the FSF made a list of which functions they consider "standard",
>and which they consider "GNU-specific"?  Such a list would be very
>useful.  Right now, I have written no C++ OS/2 apps with GCC/2,
>because of fear of GNU prosecution.

To the best of my knowledge, no. This also falls under the 
category of "bad things." Despite claims to the contrary,
I have not been able to get answers to questions about whether
situation X is acceptible under the restrictions of the GPL from
the FSF. If I had money to burn, I'd just check with my own 
lawyer and risk a lawsuit.

Note that it's not a matter of universal availability of a given
function, but simply the existence of a non-GPL version which
makes such a call allowable. It is suspected, but unprovable
that this is actually backing down from a stronger stance after
realizing that otherwise FSF would be guilty of much the same
sort of sin that they chastise Apple and others for.

I think that this probably belongs in gnu.misc.discuss so I'm 
redirecting it there.

-dh