*BSD News Article 14689


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.