DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:from:organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id;
        b=V7n24pesKHAdDbGCfBOHetHJpJ2a7EU4c85Q6bb55YdXi823QaGlN2f3lESIACKgtzpIpL9RwzpYDRe4bjKxo3e+Ui+OBA62flvzC8S8+ecyR++sP2VEoDVJZvK7UbgGW/zqhYa8CK9QXqkgBZr7pfjjzccYOtU/XKVmn1rE4bk=
From: Ricardo Galli <gallir@gmail.com>
Organization: UIB/Gmail
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: GPL only modules
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:56:56 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200612161927.13860.gallir@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612161253390.3479@woody.osdl.org> <orwt4qaara.fsf@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <orwt4qaara.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200612171656.56208.gallir@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2089
Lines: 42

On Sunday 17 December 2006 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
> > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
> > the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably
> > have been shown to be bogus.
>
> Or that people would feel uncomfortable about the gray area and avoid
> using the GPLed code in cases in which this would be perfectly legal
> and advantageous to Free Software. ?Sure enough, when people create
> and distribute proprietary code by taking advantage of Free Software,
> that's something to be avoided, but since there are other Free
> Software licenses that are not compatible with the GNU GPL, it made
> sense to enable software licensed under them to be combined with these
> few libraries. ?Letting concerns about copyright infringement, be such
> acts permissible by law or not, scare Free Software developers away
> from Free Software was not good for Free Software.

LGPL somehow fixes this gray area to allow a wider and clear "fair use" by 
allowing people to easily[*] run proprietary programs in a free operating 
system.

[*] In the sense they don't need to compile/link the program themselves, which 
is clearly legal under the GPL and the FSF intentions (freedom #0).

So, people that just worries about "fair use" could interpret it --besides 
the "official" arguments- as a message that makes clear FSF is not trying to 
push his agenda into the gray areas of copyright laws.

But the very same evidence is used to loudly support an opposite 
interpretation of FSF [evil] intentions, to weaken the legal strength of the 
GPL, and to accuse FSF of pushing some hidden and insane arguments.

Presumptuous, to say the least.

-- 
  ricardo galli       GPG id C8114D34
  http://mnm.uib.es/gallir/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/