Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!decwrl!infopiz!lupine!pepper!mellon Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (R Message-ID: <mellon.714377849@pepper> From: mellon@iti.org (Ted Lemon) Date: 21 Aug 92 06:17:29 GMT Sender: news@NCD.COM References: <1992Aug18.015903.8526@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Aug18.234401.2087@nrao.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: pepper Lines: 29 cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) writes: >>Because Hurd is an OS, does this mean that *any* application that runs on it >>is a derivitive work and falls under GNU Public License? >No. Even a lawyer would think that that was silly. I hate to be a spoilsport, but Apple recently sued a company for pretty much what you describe above. A company in Menlo Park produces a software package that allows you to make your Mac application run on non-Mac machines by emulating the publically documented Mac API. Apple sued, stating that this company was encouraging Apple software vendors to distribute code owned by Apple without Apple's consent. The code in question was the application vendor's code, not Apple's. I didn't explain this particularly well; it's much better explained in a recent LPF mailing which you can get by contacting the LPF (see my ..signature). The bottom line is that with the exception of contingency and pro bono work, a lawyer could care less whether or not your lawsuit is silly, as long as it generates billable hours. If your lawyer is ethical, you will at least be told that you're being silly, but lawyers are bound by their code of ethics (can you say Military Intelligence?) to defend their clients in court, regardless of the actual truth of the matter. _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com uunet!mellon Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu