🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MIB.92Jan27225019@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
> In article <JBW.92Jan27204933@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
>    In article <MIB.92Jan27201417@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>       If you don't read the source, you are guaranteed it's not derivative,
>       so you aren't worse off than with commercial software.

>    Not good enough.  If you use a GPL-covered include file, the object file
>    is derived from it.

> You are correct; I was wrong.  The issue is *not* one of look-and-feel
> copyright.  The use of GPL-covered code is not the same thing as
> writing your own code to do the same thing.

It's an interface copyright.  If I need (or even just want) prototypes
from functions that I am calling from your library, I am going to have
a hell of a time getting them without using code that falls under the
GPL.  Does the FSF really want to say that people are prohibited from
writing libraries that are compatible with libraries falling under the
GPL?

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       I'm changing the CHANNEL..  But all I get is commercials for
       ``RONCO MIRACLE BAMBOO STEAMERS''!