Re: Circumventing the GPL via open standards

"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> For example, consider an open standard, such as Project UDI, which was
> developed independently of any GPL code.  Clearly, the GPL holds no claim
> to this standard.  UDI stands for "Uniform Driver Interface", a low-level
> interface, source-code compatible and binary-compatible where possible, for
> many operating systems to be able to use the same driver code unmodified.
> The standard places restrictions on the OS and the driver, but it's just an
> API definition, and it was developed using proprietary operating systems.

oh, you hit a really sore spot with me on rms and UDI....

> At what point is it a derived work?  It's not clear.  But it's clear that
> situations could arise where a proprietary product is linked with GPL'd
> code via a neutral API without the knowledge of the proprietary author, and
> there's no way the GPL could be held to bind the proprietary author then...

You can see what rms' real intentions are when you look his reasoning
with UDI.  Having drivers that is OS independent (even if it were at a source
level) would be a *good* thing, as it would give the end user more choices 
(no longer would you be locked into any particular OS to get a piece of hardware
working).  However, rms is borderline against UDI.  Why?  Because it does not
push the GPL agenda (and no, I'm not putting words in his mouth)
   http://slashdot.org/articles/98/10/04/2211242.shtml
 

-r