Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Martin Dickopp]

cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> Eben's other assertion is that the GPL is a license contract

Such an assertion would be in direct contrast to various of his
writings, e.g. <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html>.
Can you please provide a reference where he said that the GPL is
a contract?

> It seems more likely that they knew exactly what they were doing, and
> that from the outset they were hoping to establish new case law by
> changing the legal meaning of "derivative work",

I don't think dynamic linking was all that common when the GPL was
crafted; I'm not even sure if it existed at all.  Can you provide some
evidence that and how they took it into account?

> Trying to set such precedents would be consistent with the goals of
> their clearly stated agenda, which boils down to a radical
> de-legitimization of intellectual property rights

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, mostly because
"intellectual property" is a fuzzy term which encompasses such wildly
different concepts as copyright, patents, and trademarks.

Can you provide some evidence that the FSF's positions on copyright,
patents, and trademarks are identical, if that's what you're saying?

> So, Martin Dickopp, can you explain the answer that you gave Alexander
> Terekhov by telling us what "derivative work" you are referring to and
> how it was created?

Yes, Christopher C. Stacy, I think that the interpretation of the FSF is
most likely to persist in court, on the ground that so far, no violator
has had the guts to challenge the FSF's position in court.  If even
large corporations with large legal departments fear to meet a small
volunteer's organization with a single pro bono lawyer in court, there
surely must be a reason?

Martin