Re: Using non-GPL libraries in a GPL program

[David Kastrup]

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <87iqwxjijb.fsf@catnip.gol.com>, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> 
> wrote:
>> > This is true of Stallman's written works, but I would be very wary of
>> > putting any trust in something from a transcription of an audio
>> > recording of a spoken comment made in a Q&A session after a speech.
>> 
>> He's had enough real interaction with lawyers on these issues that
>> surely he's formed reasonable instincts regarding them.
>> 
>> Terekhov, on the other hand, is simply a blithering idiot.
>
> So how come Federal courts seem to mostly agree with Tereknov's 
> positions?

Huh?  Terekhov has a rather bad track record of predicting verdicts.  He
explains this by calling judges drunk or idiots or so and blusters even
more when the appellate court is of the same opinion.

Now Terekhov is fabulous at quoting a lot of stuff and interpreting it
in his own twisted manner and parading in the sure knowledge it supports
his points.  That may look convincing at times.  But it does not help
his predictions when actual cases are handled.

> How come when RMS decides to wax forth legalistically, there never
> seem to be either cases or statutes that back his position?

Because the FSF is not a litigation company and so the GPL has been
written not as a contract, but a license.  As a consequence, it does not
make sense for anybody to sue about the GPL: either it is valid, and
people have to abide the terms of the license, or it isn't, and people
are not in the situation where they can make use of the software in
question.

So GPL violators settle because they have no leg to stand on.  And that
means that there are few enough court cases with a definite verdict
because the GPL violators lose _regardless_ of the verdict.  Once the
violators see that, they have nothing to gain from staying in court and
settle.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum