Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > > SCO aside for a moment, AFAIK, no one is planning to sue Red Hat or
> > > Cisco -- both are blatant violators of the GPL under the FSF's
> > > interpretation.
> > 
> > Care to explain in the case of RedHat?
> 
> Short memory, dak? 
> 
> http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=40239163.78134B8B%40web.de
> http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=x5d68stcln.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz
> http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=4023C5D4.522B4B7F%40web.de

Your previous nonsense does not become more valid by quoting it.
glibc is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel, and the Linux
kernel is not a derivative work of glibc.  Even if glibc happened to
be linked into the kernel (which it isn't) this would only mean that
the linked kernel as a whole would be covered by the GPL.

> Hint: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
> which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole
> must be on the terms of this License".

You are making a spectacle of yourself.  No court will answer to
"hints", and yet you presume to give legal advice here.  Legal advice
that is completely unsound and can be called downright malicious since
its interpretation is neither shared by the relevant parties nor by
the courts, as you well know.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum