🚀 go-pugleaf

/ gnu.misc.discuss / coolidge@casca.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) / Mar 29 1990 /
> >Stallman et al have taken the stance that the above method still requires
> >you to distribute your source code.  Since your code was designed to work
> >with the GNU code, and *only* the GNU code, then it must fall under the
> >copyleft.
> 
> What's the difference, ethically speaking, between this and proprietary
> user interfaces? Seems to me that "designed to work with the GNU code"
> is a lot like "designed to work with code with the look and feel of
> the GNU code". Isn't it entirely possible for someone to come up with
> libg++  (for instance) compatible libraries which are Truly Free
> Software (or, on the other hand, proprietary software)?

The difference is precisely that if you create (or obtain) a library that
is plug-compatible with libg++, you can link with it instead of libg++, and
your program will be a derivative of that library and subject to the
licensing terms of that library and not libg++.  You are NOT prevented from
writing software that duplicates the interface of GNU software.  That is
the difference.

In other words, if you ship a partial product that needs GNU *CODE* to be
complete, you are not fooling anybody, and the GNU license applies.  On the
other hand, if the GNU code is just one of the options to complete the
product, then the product is subject to the GNU license only if you use the
GNU code.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and am not presenting this as legal advice.

Jacob
--
Jacob Gore		Jacob@Gore.Com			boulder!gore!jacob