On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On 08/18/2015 09:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> I think the kernel devs would be hard-pressed to mount some kind of >> GPL infringement lawsuit. In general US courts have tended to block >> attempts to use copyright/trademark/patents/etc simply to prevent >> interoperability, and that is basically what this is. > > The entire point of the GPL is to "prevent interoperability" with people > who want to steal your work and take away its users' freedoms.
That might be their purpose, but it is based on copyright law, which does not share that purpose. The GPL can't take away anybody's rights. A license GIVES you rights. It is copyright law which restricts you, and the GPL eases those restrictions. The law says that hanging out on somebody else's property without permission is trespassing. However, my neighbor can mow my lawn for me if I give them permission. That doesn't mean that they need permission from me to mow their own lawn, because the whole basis for needing permission was that they would be violating a law which no longer applies. The law says you can't make copies of the kernel source or binaries without permission. The GPL says that you can make copies under some conditions. The law doesn't say that you can't make something inter-operable with a copyrighted work. The GPL can't impose such a restriction any more than I can tell my neighbor on which days he is allowed to mow his own lawn. -- Rich
