Re: New licence and driver SDK ?

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Ed Cogburn wrote: [...]
> 
>> If you really believe they are bluffing, then call them on it.  Violate
>> the GPL based on a linking issue and let the whole world, including the
>> FSF, know about it.  Then we'll *all* find out if they are bluffing,
>> and/or whether the GPL can stand up in court.  So far I hear a lot of
>> bitching, yet no one who believes the GPL is wrong has put their money
>> where their mouth is and taken the FSF/GPL to court.
> 
> 
> That's ass backwards logic, so to say. Well, why don't you ask FSF to
> provide an update on their "enforcement action" against Linksys and others
> (the drivers stuff, I mean)?


AFAIK, that issue is over:  http://lwn.net/Articles/53780

"In response to pressure from the Free Software Foundation and the community,
LinkSys has made a new tarball available containing the source for the
firmware running in its WRT56G wireless router. This new source distribution
(available here; get the 1.41.2 version) contains a good deal of new code,
including the modifications to the kernel to support the Broadcom 4702
processor. Many of those who have been pursuing this particular GPL violation
case are now satisfied."

The rest of that article does go on to discuss the whole binary module 
"problem" with Linux, but the Linksys issue appears to be over, and again, it 
happened without anyone challenging the GPL.


>> *You* may absolutely convinced its wrong, but you aren't the judicial
>> system, so excuse me if wait to hear from a *judge* whether the GPL is
>> valid or not.
> 
> 
> I think that the GPL is quite valid. It just can't "infect" independent
> software (in the sense of copyright law). "API" is a boundary that the GPL
> can't cross.


Again, that is an issue that won't be really decided until the courts weigh in 
on what a "derivative work" specifically is, and where the boundaries lie. 
Which goes back to my original point, you saying the GPL can't cross an API 
doesn't make it true, a judge has to say that first, and after that judge's 
decision is upheld by higher courts, *then* *you* can say its true.  Until 
then, its just your/Rosen's *opinion* against my/FSF/Moglen's *opinion*.