gpl backlash?

[bruce at perens.com]

From: Kyle Rose <krose at theory.lcs.mit.edu>
> Unfortunately, as much as I love the GPL, I don't think this is
> enforcable.  Remember that the GPL covers only distribution, not use;
> hence, if the distribution of a work linked against a library
> interface (even that for which only a GPL'ed implementation exists)
> does not contain any actual code from that library, it cannot be
> considered a derived work.

Remember, we're talking about how the concept of a derived product has not
kept up with software. So, I agree that this may not be enforcable today,
but I might work toward making it enforcable. In the meantime, I'd hope that
good citizens would comply with the intent of my license even if the
possibility for successful enforcement is low.

> Although IANAL, it would be like suing critics for reviews which contain
> "hooks" into the book (e.g., character names, chapter and/or event
> references, etc.)

A closer metaphor might be cross-linking of web sites. For example, say I took
the site that you spent a lot to produce, and presented it inside of a frame
with all of my own ads around the border. You'd have a right to object. This
is another area where copyright law _has_not_kept_up_.

	Thanks

	Bruce