home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!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
-