Re: Mission offers no support

"georgina o. economou" wrote:
[...]
> So, now that we all own issues, what I can't fathom is how this 
> whole GPL compatibility thing happens or does not happen.  I 
> think I'll make it my 'issue' and ask Alex for starters, for 
> some input and lots of tinyurl's ;-)

I have yet to see a reasonable interpretation of the Copyright 
Act (case law aside for a moment) that would support the FSF's 
claims. GPL incompatibility is politically motivated bluff.

As for tinyurls... well,

http://tinyurl.com/27wxo

<quote>

[...]
GPL remains a dangerous defense for defenders of open source: 
the GPL is the basis for the open-source software industry, 
yet no court has ever ruled on the enforceability or 
interpretation of the agreement (one case relating to MySQL 
generated an opinion, but the court deferred interpretation 
of the GPL and the case settled).*** The language of the GPL 
is opaque and it has many ambiguities: it does not establish 
a governing law, the scope of "derivative works" that are 
governed by the GPL is unclear and the legal effect of the 
FAQ (which are not part of the license itself) is uncertain. 
[...]

</quote>

regards,
alexander.

***) http://tinyurl.com/3dhns http://tinyurl.com/yvd2z
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/07/12/2142237

P.S. http://tinyurl.com/3fzxt

--
"Tenth Defense: SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of 
 copyright misuse." 
                               -- http://tinyurl.com/2a885