From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265250AbTLFVas (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:30:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265251AbTLFVas (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:30:48 -0500 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:58256 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265250AbTLFVar (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:30:47 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Theodore Ts'o" , "Larry McVoy" , "Kernel Mailing List" Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:30:39 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20031206153845.GA8552@thunk.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > So trust me, you really don't want to claim that just because a > program was written to use a particular interface, the license infects > across the API. Apple and Microsoft are playing that game, and a very > unsavory game it is. And it leads to all sorts of paradoxes, such as > the one I described above. > > - Ted What you want do is claim that taking from a copyrighted work merely what you need to take from it in order to make your own code interoperate with it is fair use. If people honestly believe in free software, they should be making these types of claims. DS