It's a chilling strategy because the costs of not using a GPL software is always less than a legal fight.
Also, you do have rather established legal definitions of 'collective' and 'derivative works'. See, for example, Laurence Rosen: "Open Source Licensing". Then, why does the GPL3 not use them? Instead, is uses 'work based on' IIRC. So, why's that?
In my opinion, the resulting (legal) uncertainty is intentional.
Another reason: If the interpretation of the FSF is true, all works that ever linked dynamically against a Microsoft library would be derivative works of said library. Does it makes sense that companies like Adobe try to build a business on such shaky legal grounds?
Comments
So, nothing happens and, therefore, it's part of a chilling strategy? I am not sure if I can follow.
It's a chilling strategy because the costs of not using a GPL software is always less than a legal fight.
Also, you do have rather established legal definitions of 'collective' and 'derivative works'. See, for example, Laurence Rosen: "Open Source Licensing". Then, why does the GPL3 not use them? Instead, is uses 'work based on' IIRC. So, why's that?
In my opinion, the resulting (legal) uncertainty is intentional.
Another reason: If the interpretation of the FSF is true, all works that ever linked dynamically against a Microsoft library would be derivative works of said library. Does it makes sense that companies like Adobe try to build a business on such shaky legal grounds?
So, the FSF is out to obstruct the use of GPL software. Who would have imagined that?
Yeah, totally unbelievable, isn't it?
For they give away their stuff with no strings attached! Oh, wait...
Not only it comes with no strings attached (as being Free Software requires), the GPL ensures nobody will ever be able to attach any strings to it.
The only thing you can't do with code derived from GPL'ed code is attaching strings to it. Your clients should celebrate it.