ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"

[Michael K. Edwards]

On 7/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with that "doesn't allow" part based on the actual terms
> of the GPL and applicable law ...

Whoops.  To be clear: I am of the opinion that the GPL is enforceable
(as a contract) in all legal systems about which I know anything at
all, and is effective in requiring distributors of binaries made from
GPL source to offer corresponding source code, to within a reasonable
standard of accuracy.  But I don't think a US court would rule that a
program that uses a library becomes a "derivative work" of that
library, and to say that the GPL "doesn't allow" most of the uses for
which dual-licensing publishers demand a fee is somewhere between
stretching the applicable law and deliberately misrepresenting it.

If you would care to review the grounds for that assertion (which has
been the topic of a recent debate on debian-legal), I am currently
polishing a manuscript which goes into rather mind-numbing detail on
the matter.  Copies for private review available upon request.

Cheers,
- Michael