https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20031206211900.GA9034@thunk.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20031206211900.GA9034@thunk.org... Theodore Ts'o (2003) [Incidental

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20031206211900.GA9034@thunk.org/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20031206211900.GA9034@thunk.org... Theodore Ts'o (2003) [Incidentally this issue is at the heart of Oracle v Google. I find it fascinating how the tech community in general seems to not realize these are the same things.] Quote: But that aside, does the Open Source community really want to push for the legal principal that just because you write an independent program which uses a particular API, the license infects across the interface? That's essentially interface copyrights, and if say the FSF were to file an amicus curiae brief support that particular legal principle in an kernel modules case, it's worthwhile to think about how Microsoft and Apple could use that case law to f*ck us over very badly. It would mean that we would not be able to use Microsoft DLL's in programs like xine. It would mean that programs like Crossover office wouldn't work. It would mean that Apple could legally prohibit people from writing enhancements to MacOS (for example, how do all of the various extensions in Mac OS 9 work? They link into the operating system and modify its behaviour. If they are therefore a derived work of MacOS, then Apple could screw over all of the people who write system extensions of MacOS.)