Re: GPL, yet again. (The kernel is a lot like a shared library)

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

claus@faerber.muc.de (Claus Färber) writes:

> Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> schrieb/wrote:
>> You are the one who is supposedly attempting to offer an argument
>> here. Not me. I'm just telling you why yours is broken.
>
> You are actually creating straw mans which are broken. The original
> argument isn't.
>
> The argument, simplified, basically goes like this:
>
> 1. Program A is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute A.
>    Library M is licensed under the GPL. => Debian can distribute M.
>    Program B is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against M.
>    => Debian can distribute B.
>
> 2. Library O is licensed under the a BSD-like license, which contains
>    an advertisting clause. => Debian can still distribute O.
>    Program C is a derivative of A, which dynamically links against O.
>    => Debian can't distribute C.
>
> 3. Library M is fully compatible to O. So programs B and C are actually
>    identical.
>    => Debian can and can't distribute B/C at the same time.
>    => This can't be right.
>
> So one of the assumptions made above is wrong. The only assumption that
> is not obviously right is: "Debian can't distribute C".
>
> Well, you can replace "Debian can't distribute C" by "Debian can't  
> distribute C unless M is available". But this is very strange as it  
> would mean that the advent of M changes the copyright status of C, which  
> is actually derieved from A and O.

This is the argument that has been rehashed here countless times.
Each time, the reply has been something like "you're wrong", with no
explanations whatsoever.  I can only take this to mean that they are
out of real arguments, but refuse to admit it, just like the FSF
themselves.  I'm giving up this discussion for now, until people
perhaps decide to start using logic and reason, rather than philosophy
and religion to reach their conclusions.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com