Re: LGPL module linked with a GPL lib
On 8/2/05, Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/05, Michael K. Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm just telling you how it looks to me, and pointing you to where I
> > got what evidence I have so that you can judge for yourself. The FSF
> > is notoriously unforthcoming about their financial dealings, and the
> > cash flows involved are not chump change (see the numbers disclosed by
> > Jamie Zawinski in the Lucid Emacs saga). Whether or not you think RMS
> > and Eben Moglen are cashing in personally (about which I have no
> > evidence), if you are willing to take their uncorroborated claims
> > about the legal strategy at the heart of their enterprise at face
> > value, you are a more trusting man than I.
> This sounds like something appropriate for the scandal column of a
> tabloid. But what's the relevance of this issue to debian-legal?
Scandal columns of tabloids don't generally comb the public record for
evidence on both sides of an issue, which I am making a sincere effort
to do (see the rebuttal I just sent of my own speculations on FSF
finances). This private organization and its affiliates are marketing
an approach to my career and livelihood, and presumably that of many
debian-legal participants, which rests on assertions about the law
that my (unqualified but dogged) research says are false. Millions of
dollars have passed through the accounts of entities that RMS and Eben
Moglen control over the past 15 years -- entities whose entire
justification for existence is the promotion of their views on these
Debian-legal has generally taken these two people's views at face
value, without asking for their basis -- with some pretty serious
consequences for projects like KDE and OpenSSL, and for people who
might want to bring ISVs onto Debian and Debian-derived platforms.
That is of course entirely within their rights; Debian may be content
to toe the FSF line with respect to linking relationships whether or
not it has any basis in law. But I don't seem to be the only one
around here interested in the question of what might underly that
agenda and what risks it might expose Debian to down the line.
So yes, inquiring minds want to know.