Re: softwarecombinations paper Re: LGPL vs. GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stop shifting the burden of proof, GNUtian ciaran.

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> > Now read
> >
> > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
> 
> I just skimmed it.
> 
> I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of
> your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't
> work how FSF say it works.  One simple piece of data that weakens your
> position is the paper's date: April 2006.
> 
> If this paper gave any support to your anti-GPL arguments, don't you think
> that after more than 2 years, someone with finances or connections and an
> anti-GPL agenda like Microsoft, SCO, or an attention-seeking
> journalist/controversialist/lawyer would have jumped on it?  But no one did.
> It's been ignored.  So it's really, really unlikely this paper provides
> credible support to your usual agenda.
> 
> From my skim, I saw various points suggesting that the method of linking
> (dynamic vs. static), or the mixing of outputs, or hyperlinking have no
> effect on whether or not something is a derived work.  The author is
> probably right, and this just supports what FSF has been saying for years.
> FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that
> is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of
> writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking
> the software.

FSF's position is that "This is a legal question, which ultimately
judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on
the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within
a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication
(what kinds of information are interchanged)." It's up to the FSF/SFLC
to proof their belief. Thus far, all that we've seen is just a bunch of
moronic complaints warranting automatic dismissal AND which were
dismissed automatically by the SFLC.

> 
> If I've missed something meaningful in the paper, could you quote it here?

The paper explains why FSF's belief regarding derivative works has no
basis in law.

Here's a message from another lawyer Larry Rosen as of Tue, 15 Jul 2008.

http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15888:200807

------
> > [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
> > What does FSF's preference have to do with anything?

David Woolley responded:
> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an example
> of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in programs
> which are not "free" by their definitions.  Basically it's about not
> benefitting from the library unless you allow people to benefit from
> your program in the same way.

This is about "License Discuss", not "Wishes Discuss". And so perhaps
David's question could be something like this: "Does the license
accomplish
what the licensor wishes?"
 
John Cowan is correct in his earlier proposed answer to my first
question:
> Because some open-source contributors are generous sharers rather than
> generous givers, and are willing to let you make use of their source code
> only if you are willing to let them make use of yours.

John, I believe you are paraphrasing something I wrote years ago, so
obviously I agree. :-) But perhaps modern courts will interpret the law
and
the license a little differently so that they don't precisely reflect
the
same vision of shared generosity that seems to drive some GPL licensors. 

For example, the GPL and similar licenses may be interpreted under
copyright
law so that they don't call something a derivative work simply because
it
links for functional purposes to non-GPL code. This interpretation might
make the licensor's wishes about linking incompatible with the law.

Depending perhaps upon the wording and contractual effect of the
licenses,
of course, but depending mostly upon copyright law, non-GPL code won't
have
to be "shared" just because it links to independent GPL-licensed works,
despite the wishes of the GPL licensor. Or so I am willing to argue
here.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woolley [mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:53 PM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: distributing GPL libreries
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> 
> > [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
> What
> > does FSF's preference have to do with anything?
> >
> 
> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an example
> of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in programs
> which are not "free" by their definitions.  Basically it's about not
> benefitting from the library unless you allow people to benefit from
> your program in the same way.
> 
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
------

regards,
alexander.

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)