RE: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)
** Sean Kellogg ::
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 11:38 am, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > There's an awful lot of lawyers and law professors who think
> > that the GPL works. Go start by arguing with them.
>
> Based on my readings of law review articles and the common legal
> arguments surrounding the GPL, the reason it works is because the
> GPL is a contract. The linking clause is a contractual term that
> you must agree to in order to receive a copyright license. Pretty
> standard forbearance.
But... there is _no_ linking clause in the GPL (*). Unless you are
telling me that the "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs"
is a binding part of the contract, which I will also dispute,
because the mentioned title is immediately after a big, all-caps
"END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS" in the GPL.
>
> I know of no legal professional, outside of the FSF, who believes
> the GPL stands up as a pure copyright license.
Ditto.
(*) see:
$ grep -n -i -C link gpl.txt
336-This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
337-proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
338:consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
339-library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
340-Public License instead of this License.
$ grep -n -i -C how.to.apply.these gpl.txt
280- END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
281-
282: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
283-
284- If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
--
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: