Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34945 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1741 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!psinntp!uuneo!sugar!peter From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 12:14:11 GMT Message-ID: <C5qCnn.5Kw@sugar.neosoft.com> References: <D87-MAL.93Apr18165428@byse.nada.kth.se> <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> Lines: 30 In article <C5poEp.8Jw@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <C5p4Ix.G9n@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Gee, I don't recall Sun claiming they owned *my* code because I linked it with > >their toolkits. > Neither does the FSF. Not for *some* of these toolkits, since the library license came out. > What the FSF does say, however, is that you must continue to follow the GPL > if you distribute a program that include GPL'd code. "Ownership" of intellectual property comes down to the ability to control its distribution. If the FSF controls the distribution of my code, they own it. > Various DOS-based compilers have their own restrictions -- and microsoft > used to claim that code output by their compiler *was* their code (or, > rather, a derivative product of your code and their code). "Used to". Quite a long time ago. Just about everyone but the FSF has quit this sort of rubbish. Some require a license fee for their runtimes, but that's about it. -- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. `-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään? 'U` Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.