conducting a sane and efficient GPLv3, LGPLv3 Review

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 8/2/07, Zak Greant <zak at greant.com> wrote:
> > "Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg. "
> >
> >                                               -- day5done
>
> Daniel Wallace[0], though he has lost his court cases and related
> appeals, may find comfort in knowing that people still find him
> quotable.

He may. Here is full quote in context:

-----
LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see
proprietary modules as an infringement?

[Eben:] Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the
degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder
of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with
some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is
dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and
because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what
determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear
analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the
license if it's pure GPL.
-----

day5done commented:

-----
Analytically, the above would be true only if the first Nth
hyperbolic cosines of the address registers are congruent (in a
Hilbert Space) to the metric tenor of the hard drive space when
mapped one to one onto (or is it into?) a finite but unbounded
timelike manifold.

Eben's got more bullshit rap than Snoop Dogg.
-----

>
> --zak
>
> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wallace_(plaintiff)

Hey Zak, are you still at MySQL?

I'm asking because MySQL must be truly excited regarding Seventh
Circuit's interpretation of the GPL...

------
Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Does the provision of copyrighted software
under the GNU General Public License ("GPL") violate the federal
antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license,
devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only
copying but also the creation of derivative works—and the license
prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and
distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same
license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user
to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any
creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software
or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of
limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-
source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work
will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted
the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result "copyleft."

[...]

Linux and other open-source projects have been able to cover their
fixed costs through donations of time
------

See?  Original authors can't sell either. It's all donated.

:-)

(It was real fun to watch groklaw crowd loudly complaining about
"Horrible interpretation of the GPL" by EASTERBROOK.)

regards,
alexander.