Re: GNU License, Again

[Alexander Terekhov]

none Byron Jeff wrote:
[...]
> I did. Same opinion as the first time. The only differences are that SCO
> is arguing a contractual link. In addition they are arguing that
> 'licenses that covered all "methods" and "concepts" of operating
> systems' belongs to them.

Their claim regarding methods and concepts is about disclosures such
as "negative know-how" irrespective of embodiments (if any) in code.

[...]

> >> OTOH if you take a piece of GPL codebase and extend it, that's a whole
> >> different matter.
> 
> >Yeah, even if an "extension" is 100% original work and doesn't contain
> >any protected elements from GPL'd work you purport it "extends"?
> 
> If you write a 100% code fragment that does not operate without the GPL
> code base? 

Whether it can or can not operate without some other code is totally
irrelevant. Software is protected as LITERARY work modulo AFC 
filtering. 

>            How can that not be a derivative work? 

Easy. It doesn't contain any protected elements from the GPL'd work. 

Stop being utter cretin, none Byron Jeff.

regards,
alexander.