Re: softwarecombinations paper again Re: LGPL vs. GPL

[rjack]

Tim Smith wrote:

> For example, if I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do* 
> *not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not 
> have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that 
> requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners, and I do not believe 
> users of my plugin have to do anything when using the plugin with GIMP 
> that they require permission for (so I don't have to worry about 
> contributory infringement, since there cannot be contributory 
> infringement without direct infringement).  I've not heard any good 
> argument from the FSF as to why the video game cases would not apply.

Uhhh...

Anyone who has consumed even a few ounces of Eben Moglen's famous Kool-Aid
knows that writing a plugin for a GPL'd program instantly gives the F.S.F. and
S.F.L.C. control over your wife, kids, estate, family dog *and* your source 
code.

Even the mention of "copyright infringement" by the S.F.L.C sends potential
defendants into paroxysms of incredulous cowardice and supplication.

Beware the GPL or it'll get you too!

Sincerely,
Rjack


"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or 
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." 
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre 
Trials,' December 1770