Message from discussion Recommendation for a CL data structures library
From: Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
References: <rNOSPAMon-8EB10B.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BAB94A6.FC21BDF2@web.de> <exMqn.129926$0N3.email@example.com> <4BAB9681.DD609A81@web.de> <DsNqn.129931$0N3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BABA906.A3837F20@web.de> <9QNqn.129934$0N3.email@example.com> <4BABAD26.F0837D90@web.de> <ikOqn.129940$0N3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BABB713.89774B6D@web.de> <KNOqn.email@example.com> <4BABBDD2.firstname.lastname@example.org> <K1Qqn.email@example.com> <4BABD27D.2ABBF74D@web.de> <PNRqn.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BAC7CFC.60FA90@web.de> <9n1sn.32776$EE6.email@example.com> <4BB0B303.1923D52F@web.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BB0B79C.459AD894@web.de> <1U2sn.email@example.com> <4BB0BCE6.284FD966@web.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BB0CD13.581FD6C9@web.de> <email@example.com> <4BB0D1AA.6F1C37F2@web.de> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4BB0FA61.FF6C11B@web.de> <2Z6sn.email@example.com> <4BB0FFB1.14E7A7BD@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:45:05 UTC
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:44:53 -0400
On 3/29/2010 3:29 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Recall that the FSF itself is on record:
Yes, you have quoted this many times. But I do not think
this means what you (pretend to) think it means. What the
FSF has said is correct, but none of what it said supports
the strange theories of anti-GPL cranks.
> "In his Response, Plaintiff claims that FSF uses the GPL "to pool and
> cross-license [FSF's] intellectual property with others." However, as is
> evident on the face of the agreement itself, the GPL is not a "pooling"
> or "cross-licensing" agreement.
Yes, it is neither of those.
> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
> copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under
> the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not
> licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work
> not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the
> Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring
> the other work under the scope of this License."
And this is also obviously true, as can be determined by
reading the GPL.
> "Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the
> interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the
> ambiguity. This is common in cases of adhesion contracts and insurance
> contracts. A drafter of a document should not benefit at the expense of
> an innocent party because the drafter was careless in drafting the
Fortunately the GPL carefully defines when a collective work
must as a whole be licensed under the GPL and when it need not
be. There is no ambiguity for computer programs statically
linked with GPL-covered code, or with GPL-covered programs
distributed as part of GNU/Linux distributions. It is true
that anti-GPL cranks would like to claim that such ambiguity
exists, but courts can read the text of the GPL and do not
have to listen to the rantings of cranks except to dismiss