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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael K. Edwards (m.k.edwards@gmail.com):

> 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.  

As you are perhaps well aware, it seems likely to be adjudicated
enforceable merely as a copyright licence, irrespective of whether 
it also has all the required elements of a valid contract.  (In the very
unlikely event of this being a new thought, please see Prof. Moglen's
"GPL Not a Contract" piece linked from
http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/ , and also Lawrence Rosen's 
licensing book, available online at http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm .

> But I don't think a US court would rule that a
> program that uses a library becomes a "derivative work" of that
> library....

Yes, the FSF-promoted notion that linking alone suffices to make a work
derivative seems highly doubtful and to fly in the face of precedent, 
e.g., the CAI v. Altai decision's test.  

Your analysis (judging by current evidence) tempts me to take back
all... well, some... of the rude things I've said lately about
debian-legal:  http://linuxgazette.net/116/lg_launderette.html#nottag.22