Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 7/28/05, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> For example, take Progress v. MySql -- here, the "stop
> distribution" penalty was not used in part because Progress
> didn't have anything else -- it would have been destroyed
> by this penalty. And, Progress had agreed in court to release
> their software under other terms. This is purely a practical
> issue (as you'd expect from a preliminary injunction).
You still don't seem to understand what happened in that case. The
judge cited six reasons why it would be inappropriate to grant a
preliminary injunction for breach of the GPL terms, any one of which
would have been sufficient. And it was implicit in the structure of
the decision that she rejected both the notion that the GPL is a
creature of copyright law and the plea in Mr. Moglen's affidavit that
the "automatic termination" clause was central to its "enforcement".
Had she taken either of these propositions even a little bit
seriously, she would (as she well knows) have been obliged to analyze
the request for preliminary injunction according to a completely
> What's amazing are your repeated claims that the FSF
> doesn't know what it's talking about, legally speaking.
Oh, they may well know the truth (as I understand it); but if so, they
do not choose to advertise their knowledge. Alternately, if they have
a foundation for their claims that my amateur archaeology has been
unable to unearth, they seem to have no desire to expose it to public
scrutiny. Why should they, when widespread belief in the accuracy of
their interpretation gets the job done anyway?