Re: Licensing question about the BSD

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Bruce Lewis wrote:
> [...]
>> GPL'ed code.  Your application's dependence on the GPLed code is very
>> likely to make it a derivative work.
>
> "Various claims made by the FSF, conflating engineering dependencies 
>  with copyright infringement, are not correct as a matter of law and 
>  do not form part of the agreement accepted by a licensee when 
>  exercising the license granted in the GPL. Therefore, 
>  notwithstanding the drafters' intentions, the GPL text as written 
>  does not compel the release of source code for independently 
>  authored software components that use (or are used by) GPL programs 
>  through any of the usual mechanisms employed elsewhere in the 
>  software industry. GPL "enforcement" actions that proceed on this 
>  basis, including those against NeXT and MCC which resulted in the
>  assignment to the FSF of copyright to the Objective C and C++ front
>  ends to GCC, operate under false pretenses."
>
>    -- Michael K. Edwards, Will the Real GNU GPL Please Stand Up?, 
>       unpublished draft 10th June 2005.

Too bad that the courts and the legal departments of companies like
NeXT and MCC don't agree with Mr. Edwards' unpublished draft.  GPL
"enforcement" actions tend to work rather reliably in the real world,
reliably enough that it would not seem prudent to test the legal
fantasies of a Mr. Terekhov at the receiving end of a law suit.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum