Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> If it's an extension, it's not written from scratch.

Why in the world not? An extension is a computer program which
extends (duh!) the functionality of another. Nothing about such
a program demands that it cannot be written starting with a blank
sheet of paper.

> > It fits into the framework of existing code,
>
> which is a fancy way of saying it incorporates the code, conventions and
> data structures of the existing code.

Nothing of the sort. Such a program may need to be written a stylized
manner, but this has nothing to do with the literal copying of the text
of the program which it extends.

> No, I'm not claiming it, it's an essential term of the GPL.

Again, what the GPL says is irrelevant unless there is a reason based
on copyright law for the GPL to apply to the new code.

> It only applies when the extension is an essential part of the original,
> as opposed to a coherent work in its own right.

Copyright law does not care whether a work is "coherent". Copyright law
applies to the text of the computer program. It is irrelevant that from
a functional point of view the new code is designed to be fit together
with existing code.

> Copying almost certainly did take place.  How can you write for a
> software platform without copying its system interface?

You do not copy anything. The compiled program invokes the system
interface. Copyright law does not prevent the invocation of methods.