Re: GPL traitor !

[Alan Mackenzie]

In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen is different; he reckons he's found a bug in copyright law,
> > based on a mechanical, pedantic reading of some laws, and he's arguing
> > to try and find the flaw;

> The flaw is not in copyright law. The flaw is in your interpretation of
> copyright law as forbidding certain things which it actually permits.

OK, fine.  You've been claiming for a long time that copyright is always
trounced by "interoperability", yet the only support you've offered is
a bit of the USA's DMCA which says that the prohibition on "circumvention
of technical measures" doesn't apply if you're doing it for
interoperability.

> The GPL is irrelevant; the interoperability which you believe is forbidden
> is in fact legal with any other program, regardless of its copyright,
> because there is no copying of the other program involved. You may make
> GCC code generators, Excel add-ins, Vista screen savers, or what have you
> without needing to be concerned with the copyrights of those other
> programs.

That paragraph is meaningless, because you're assuming your own
idiosyncratic definitions of "interoperability", "program", "copying",
"other", "plug-in", and so on.  See other posts in this thread which
point out your distortions.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).