[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:53:57AM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> 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.

Then your entire argument is irrelevent. If the GPL stands as a
contract then it's valid, period.

And there is no 'linking clause' in the GPL. The string 'link' only
occurs once in the whole COPYING file, and that's in the postamble,
not the license. The *only* thing there is, is the restriction on
derivatives, which operates how I described or not at all.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: