Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> Ben, as suggested, do not even bother reading what Alexander has to
> say.  The GPL FAQ was written with the help by lawyers, where as

Lawyers? Yeah, the GPL FAQ was written with the help by "lawyers" 
(like Moglen and his underlings) with an agenda contrary to public 
policy on software IP, and who are fond of bullshiting legally 
illiterate programmers. Here's what a real lawyer had to say about 
the GPL FAQ and linking.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00313.html

<quote>

[Note: IALNAP (I am lawyer, not a programmer), arguing solely in
Belgian/European context, and english is not my native language.]

[...]

As to the whole derivative work discussion, my opinion is that a judge
would rather easily decide something isn't a derived work. The linux
kernel, e.g., wouldn't need those notes of Linus to allow use of the
API and so on, on the simple reason that the kernel is designed to do
just that. In Europe at least one has an automatic license to do
everything that is necessary to run a program for the purpose it is
intended to, unless explicitly otherwise agreed to. I believe for the
GPL to rule this out, it has to draft a clause that says: you cannot
link to this program in such and such a way, unless it is also GPL'ed.
In general exceptions to a rule have to be very precise, lest they
become the rule and the rule the exception.

I am reasoning from a legal background, and I believe that is also wat
a judge would do. It is my general opinion, following Michael, that
large portions of the FSF FAQ are simply wrong. 

</quote>

regards,
alexander.