"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to > say. The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, where as
Lawyers? Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by "lawyers" (like Moglen and his underlings) with an agenda contrary to public policy on software IP, and who are fond of bullshiting legally illiterate programmers. Here's what a real lawyer had to say about the GPL FAQ and linking. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00313.html <quote> [Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.] [...] As to the whole derivative work discussion, my opinion is that a judge would rather easily decide something isn't a derived work. The linux kernel, e.g., wouldn't need those notes of Linus to allow use of the API and so on, on the simple reason that the kernel is designed to do just that. In Europe at least one has an automatic license to do everything that is necessary to run a program for the purpose it is intended to, unless explicitly otherwise agreed to. I believe for the GPL to rule this out, it has to draft a clause that says: you cannot link to this program in such and such a way, unless it is also GPL'ed. In general exceptions to a rule have to be very precise, lest they become the rule and the rule the exception. I am reasoning from a legal background, and I believe that is also wat a judge would do. It is my general opinion, following Michael, that large portions of the FSF FAQ are simply wrong. </quote> regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
