Re: Is stork a troll? (was Re: Trolltech QT license question)

On 2006-03-08, stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stork replied to:

This is the mistake you keep making. You think that you must
agree to the GPL as a condition of receiving the work. But you

I'm not saying that AT ALL. I'm saying that the distribution of a
computer work onto a public computer network is a performance or a
display just like a rock concert or a TV show, and that, as the
recipient of that show, you basically only have the right to view
it. Any additional rights you might want, you have to contact me
to get, or, you can choose to gain additional rights by abiding by
the GPL.

I'm sorry, I don't know what to say other than that you need to
understand the law in order to be able to say something that
makes any kind of sense.

I honestly don't think you understand the law, and certainly my IP
attorney thinks your argument has severe flaws.

The simple fact is that the question of whether a program that
uses an API provided by a library is a derived work of that library,
has not been decided in a court of law. Until then, there are many
complicating factors, paramount among which is the fact that it is
possible to make an application binary that will successfully dynam-
ically link against a library without ever being in possession of
that library. There is also the fact that the parts of a library
that actually need to be incorporated into the application binary
are often uncopyrightable, the fact that it is undisputed that the
end user may link a non-gpl program against a gpl library [or vice
versa], the fact that the FSF has officially acknowledged a distinc-
tion between modifying a library and making a program that uses its
API, and many others.

When you talk about "the spirit of the GPL" you are talking
about what you want the law to be, and indeed what you want the spi-
rit of the GPL itself to be - not necessarily what either actually