(OT) - Major Blow to Copyleft Theory

Alexander Terekhov alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 09:48:49 UTC 2007

On 8/29/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The standard for PI under copyright infringement claim includes
> > presumption of irreparable harm. The judge didn't apply it (and used a
> > contract standard instead).
> She did consider, "a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini
> program is a derivative or an independent and separate work under
> GPL ¶ 2.  After hearing, MySQL seems to have the better argument here,
> but the matter is one of fair dispute."  Obviously, derivative works are
> clearly a copyright law issue.

Yeah, yeah. "Is static linking like two icons on one desktop?"


<quote copyright=Free Software Foundation>

Don't go to court

FSF hasn't.
Court is expensive
Judges don't understand technology
   "Is static linking like two icons on one desktop?"
       -Judge Saris, MySQL v. Nusphere oral argument


Translation: the FSF doesn't really believe that they could fool a
judge into buying


[begin textual copying copyright=Free Software Foundation]

July 27, 2004 GPL Compliance for Software Developers Legal notes

Legal notes

Static linking creates a derivative work through textual copying

Most dynamic linking cases involve distributing the library

Still a derivative work:

Dynamic linking

Distributing only the executable (testtriangle)

Still a derivative work:

Distributing the source code of software which links to a library

[end textual copying]

FSF's "legal notes" idiocy.

> But the ruling primarily seemed to consider trademarks.


You can't read or what? "With respect to the General Public
License..." part has absolutely nothing to do with trademarks.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list