Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> 
> [... netfiler's racketing ...]
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=40A2027B.DDA419DC%40web.de

Bravo.  Some reference to a post of yours without original content
where you refer to an obscure article of somebody that does not even
understand the difference between a contract and a licence.

Of course, the GPL "does not establish a governing law" since the
scope is the copyright law of the country where the software is being
used, "the scope of "derivative works" that are governed by the GPL is
unclear" is nonsense since it is not the GPL that can even define the
scope, as it is not a contract but a licence and so can only apply to
things otherwise prohibited by copyright law, and of course it is
nonsense to claim "and the legal effect of the FAQ (which are not part
of the license itself) is uncertain" since the legal effect of the
FAQ, not being part of the licence itself, is obviously non-existent.

It is only there to point the FSF's view on the implications of the
GPL.  Which is somewhat helpful for figuring out when they will sue
you, but obviously not for figuring out what the court will then
decide upon.

And you consider this nonsensical comment to somehow negate the fact
that several companies have been forced, sometimes after being
pressured by the courts, to settle into GPL compliance, usually
connected with a payment to free software foundations.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum