Re: Corel's apt frontend
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 10:15:29AM -0500, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> > I haven't seen RMS claim that Emacs, using gcc as a backend to compile
> > code, is a derivative work of gcc. Nor has he taken issue with NeXT
> > Project Builder calling gcc to compile code, or any of the other
> > development environments' (many of which could not exist without
> > gcc) usage of gcc to do what gcc was designed for in their normal
> > operation.
> And all these use a fairly standard cc interface.
> But if someone used private interfaces to implement some proprietary
> compiler, that would be more what I was talking about.
No, my examples seem to be precisely what you are talking about. Corel's
tool, using libapt, is using dpkg's command-line interface, in the same
way an IDE calls a C compiler's command-line interface. The only real
difference is in the results; gcc compiles code, dpkg unpacks and
installs packages, as well as provides helpful information for programs
and people to use.
> > Using a program to do what it's supposed to do, as underlying
> > functionality, is simply use. It does not create some obscure new
> > "Program".
> I understand your point, and there's some truth to this, but it's more
> accurate to say, "is almost always fair use" instead of ".. is simply
> [Fair use has a specific technical meaning in copyright law, by the
Indeed...a very limited form of partial copying, generally for purposes
of discussion or review.
There is no copying of the program involved, so fair use does not need to
be brought into the equation.
| Jeff Teunissen -- President, Dusk To Dawn Computing -- email@example.com
| Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :)
| dusknet.dhis.net is a black hole for email. Use my Reply-To address.
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.net/~deek/