Well, I've already responded to this allegation yesterday, but obviously not to this list. Mailing in hurry is seldom a good idea... So I'm trying to explain this once again: Let's start with non-legal (i.e. common sense) arguments: * I do not claim that the documentation of my GLUT binding is written from scratch and therefore I have included a reference to Mark's original work at a prominent place. Although I do not concur with Mark's attitude in all areas, I respect his work: Writing a simple but very useful library which is still in use after a decade is more than most people will probably achieve in their lifetime. * I've tried very hard to stay in GLUT's spirit and made no gratuitous additions, which is exactly what Mark is trying to achieve with the status GLUT. Although sometimes a nuisance, this is why GLUT hasn't evolved into yet another swiss army knife library, which are so common these days. * I do not earn a single cent from my binding, neither does Mark get any money for GLUT. And even if he did, making GLUT available to a broader audience would boost his income, not lessen it. * I've tried to contact Mark several times through different channels, but without avail. Browsing through the links Claus has kindly tracked down, it is clear that Mark has lost his interest in GLUT and probably has a mail filter deleting everything about this topic. On the one hand, I can understand this, because given GLUT's widespread use, he is probably flooded with mails about it. But on the other hand this makes it nearly impossible to really sort this simple copyright issue out, which is a pity. Now to the more formal arguments: Attaching a two-line copyright statement to something isn't even remotely enough to prevent any usage without explicit admission, so I suggest people should read a bit before starting a copyright infringement jihad against me, e.g. http://www.benedict.com/info/fairUse/fairUse.asp or the memorandum of a well-known person in her more peaceful days: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html And some final words taken from http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm : "[...] The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. [...] To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work." Cheers, S.