[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 9/14/05, Yorick Cool <yorick.cool@fundp.ac.be> wrote:

[... FSF: assert(!is_contract(GPL)); ...]

> Alexander> > Well, either you consider the FSF's positions are authoritative and then you have to
> Alexander> > accept them all (including the dynamic linking business), or you admit
> Alexander> > you can depart with any of their assertions.
> Alexander>
> Alexander> And where can I find more details on this rather curious legal doctrine?
> It's called logic. Or consistency. Take your pick.

I pick GPL Section 5.

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it."

Good. I'm not required to accept it.

"However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works."

That may be true in the GNU Republic. 

Exclusive distribution right is about copies (material objects), 
not works.

17 USC 117(a) does grant permission to modify and create 
private adaptations (go read CONTU). And 17 USC 109(a) states: 

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a 
particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or 
any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the 
authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of 
the possession of that copy or phonorecord. "

"These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this 

I suppose they mean some unwritten GNU law. I don't mind.

"Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program ..."

I do nothing that requires acceptance (and imposes contractual 

> Alexander> > And, as an aside, in civil law at least, the court has full power as to how to qualify an
> Alexander> > act -- say it is a contract, or license, or whatever -- but is bound by the parties intent
> Alexander> > of the act's intended effects, in the limit of what the law allows.
> Alexander>
> Alexander> Oh yeah. As if FSF.org might sue me in my home EU court alleging GPL violation
> Alexander> regarding linking... Dream on. They have no balls. But just in case... per Rome
> Alexander> Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, I'll
> Alexander> simply trigger
> Alexander> straight-away US doctrine of copyright misuse (licensor's home law). Bye-bye
> Alexander> FSF's copyrights on [L]GPL'd works. Long live [L]GPL-copyright impotent FSF.
> You are aware that the FSF is not the only GPL licensor, right?

Right. And? 


("... Besides, too overbroad a viral effect ...")

Those commission folks don't quite see the light regarding static 
linking yet... but that's correctable.


Reply to: