[Asterisk-Users] SysMaster and GPL Violation

[Joe Greco]

> [snip]
> 
> >If someone believes that they are contributing software to a GPL'd
> >software project, and does not realize that the nature of your disclaimer
> >allows Digium to release their changes under a non-GPL'd license, then
> >that is breaking with the spirit of the GPL.
> 
> If that is true, then the GPL is not comprehensive enough to cover its own 
> "spirit", so what you are saying is that the GPL implementation is 
> fundamentally flawed.

The GPL is fundamentally flawed in that it's never been functionally tested
and challenged in court, and many IP lawyers believe that there are 
challenges that it would not survive.  The fact that some lawyers may have 
found further legal loopholes to exploit is not shocking, given the holes 
in the current implementation.

> If one can break the "spirit" of it without breaking it, then something is 
> missing from it that should have there.

Many people pay lawyers to find loopholes.  I have no doubt that if a large
company, of an IBM-like size, wanted to have the GPL found unenforceable,
that there are numerous vectors on which to attack it.  It is certain that
the FSF did not have as many lawyers participating in drafting this license,
and that the state of the art in software licenses 13 years ago (the most
recent update of the GPL) was less sophisticated and less tested.

I've seen good legal teams drive a truck through long legal documents that 
were considered to be thorough.  I've seen courts throw out conservative
legal documents for a variety of reasons.

The GPL is both long and quite unusual as a legal document goes.  To think
that it has no attack vector is naive at best.

> On the other hand, if you are injecting some supernatural "spirit" (and 
> purposely using that word to conjure imagery of the imaginary intangible 
> qualities that can never be written on paper) of your own into what the GPL 
> actually is, then the GPL is fine as written, which I suspect is the 
> case.  The GPL is what it
> says, and its spirit comes from what it says, and there is no way that 
> anyone can break its spirit as such.

Well, the GPL *is* an attempt to legally enforce GNU's concept of free
software, which I refer to as "the spirit of the GPL".  We can be fairly
certain that their concept did not translate verbatim into legal language,
simply because few things ever translate 100%.  

> Unless you are now claiming to be the author of the GPL, you should stop 
> trying to be an expert on its "spirit".  The only ones qualified to do so 
> are John Stallman and his attorneys, misguided though they may be.

Who's John Stallman?  Richard M. Stallman's brother?

In the meantime, if you don't like the fact that I've been contemplating
the GPL vs the BSD license vs other licenses for many years, that's fine.
You do not need to consider me an expert...  I don't consider myself one,
after all.  However, I do believe that I can safely discuss the philosophy
of the GNU project at this level of detail without conflicting with their
actual position.

> >Yet no matter how much I don't care for the GPL, I find myself believing
> >contributors who don't fully understand the disclaimer merely to be naive,
> >but Digium looking a bit unscrupulous in this regard.
> 
> Butter him up and then call him unscrupulous in a later 
> paragraph.  Beautifully manipulative.

I said 'looking a bit unscrupulous'.  How better to phrase it?  There's
something unusual going on.  It isn't being disclosed in an obvious manner.
People are signing away rights.  If you'd read the GPL and the other stuff
on the GNU web site, that's fairly clearly not in keeping with some of the
principles behind the GPL.

Manipulative?  Who's being manipulative?  I'm discussing the issue.  If
I've made a point, it's certainly not been by unfair means.

> >That obviously won't fix the "moral standing" problem that the FSF would
> 
> Your own use of quotes here suggests something interesting.  I'll leave it 
> to the reader to discover what.

What, you're dissin' me for suggesting that Digium could at least disclose
what's going on?  Or are you dissin' me for what the FSF says about authors
who release code under multiple licenses (which does not necessarily match
up with my own philosophy on the whole matter)?

Either way: Get lost.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.