Re: GPL Violation?

[Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@polcom.net>]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 03:32:51AM -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote:
>> Closed source modules are lame, and against the spirit of open source, but
>> that still doesn't make them against the license.
>
> This is _your personal interpretation_ of what consists a "derived work"
> under the GPL.
>
> Other people have other opinions on this issue.
>
> Other people even have asked lawyers that said they'd disagree with
> interpretations like the one you expressed.

Right.

Then why not make some official and only right interpretation of what is 
derived work for GPL2 in Linux and what is not, make it part of license or 
COPYING file and end this type questions, doubts and flamewars once for 
ever?

Why does Linus and others let lawyers and courts decide in such 
(important?) thing like what is allowed in Linux (or with Linux) and what 
is not?

Why not be brave, make the decission (preferably as liberal as possible) 
and end all of this instead of letting others decide (worse: letting 
others decide based on different and changing local, national rights and 
probably also on who is paying them)?

If it would mean changing Linux license (and getting every contributor 
agreement) then it could be made at least as a clear comment ("What is and 
what is not derived work for GPL2 in Linux kernel in opinion of main Linux 
kernel developers?") in the begining of the COPYING file, signed by most 
important kernel developers (that produced 99% of the code and headers 
used or touched by controversial modules anyway).


Thanks,

Grzegorz Kulewski