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

[Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>]

On 9/12/05, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote:
[...]
> Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you have to
> accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
> you can depart with any of their assertions. 

And where can I find more details on this rather curious legal doctrine?

[...]
> And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how to qualify an
> act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the parties intent
> of the act's intended effects, in the limit of what the law allows.

Oh yeah. As if FSF.org might sue me in my home EU court alleging GPL violation 
regarding linking... Dream on. They have no balls. But just in case... per Rome 
Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, I'll
simply trigger
straight-away US doctrine of copyright misuse (licensor's home law). Bye-bye 
FSF's copyrights on [L]GPL'd works. Long live [L]GPL-copyright impotent FSF.

regards,
alexander.