Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

For the sake of nailing stupid mini-RMS once again.

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> You're misquoting. 

I've been quoting FSF's (counter-) argument A The GPL is not a 
"pooling" or a "cross-licensing" agreement. Here's full quote.

-----
In his Response, Plaintiff claims that FSF uses the GPL "to pool and 
cross-license [FSF's] intellectual property with others." However, as 
is evident on the face of the agreement itself, the GPL is not a 
"pooling" or "cross-licensing" agreement. To the contrary, the GPL, 
which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software 
licensing agreement under which the GNU/Linux Operating System is 
licensed to users. The express purpose of the GPL is to make certain 
that "the software is free for all its users." (GPL, Preamble, Ex. A.) 
In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software 
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under 
the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not 
licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work 
not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the 
Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring 
the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's 
mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the
resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can 
examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached 
contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract 
controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th 
Cir. 2005).1
-----

regards,
alexander.