Re: GPL Software Gold Standard

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> It has everything to do with it.  They used GPL code as part of their
> product.

Read it again, stupid. The injunction is about <quote> sourcecode 
der software "netfilter/iptables" </quote>. Nothing more. Not even 
derivative works. 

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1303_0_3_0_C

<quote 
author=http://www.gcwf.com/gcc/GrayCary-C/Attorney-S/N-Sm/mradclif.doc_cvt.htm>

Yet the GPL remains a dangerous defense for defenders of open 
source: the GPL is the basis for the open-source software industry, 
yet no court has ever ruled on the enforceability or interpretation 
of the agreement (one case relating to MySQL generated an opinion, 
but the court deferred interpretation of the GPL and the case 
settled). The language of the GPL is opaque and it has many 
ambiguities: it does not establish a governing law, the scope of 
"derivative works" that are governed by the GPL is unclear and the 
legal effect of the FAQ (which are not part of the license itself) 
is uncertain.

</quote>

Now, I like this:

http://media.april.org/audio/RMLL-2003/fixed/David-Turner.ogg 

How can one seriously believe that contaminating food with "toxic 
waste" (14:10 in the recording above) is legal?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. 

http://www.fsf.org/press/2002-03-01-pi-MySQL.html

<quote>

The Court fully recognized the need for expert testimony at trial 
about the GNU GPL and the technical facts at hand, particularly as 
to why static linking of software components into a single, unified, 
compiled binary forms a derivative work of the original components.

</quote>

Tell me why. Anyone.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm