[quake3] Re: ioUrT licensing controversy (was Re: Greetings)

[Robert Isaac]

>
>  Truthfully, if you guys are gonna keep this in play, perhaps you'd
>  best be served in asking someone from Id about this. They are the
>  authors, after all. And I'm all out of pennies, so this is all you're
>  hear from me..

Actually the main reason this is an issue at all is because RMS and
Eben Moglen are so extremely paranoid of companies and individuals
violating the gpl that they kept the license specifically vague when
defining things such as "aggregate", "linking", and "derivative work".
  These sorts of discussions are a direct result of that paranoia and
asking id about it won't solve the real problem which is the vague
terminology of the license.

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/bangalore-rms-transcript

For those that don't follow links the relevant section of the talk
(remember v3 is just a clarification of v2):

Eben Moglen: As when, for example, people tried to draw a line between
static linking and dynamic linking under GPL version two, and we had to
keep telling people that whatever the boundary of the work is under
copyright law, it doesn't depend upon whether resolution occurs at link
time or run time. Right? Those kinds of technical decisions, whatever
they are, don't map neatly into the language of copyright, which is the
language of the licence.

Richard Stallman: Nor into the intentions of the GPL. Because, the
point is, if we drew the line in the kind of clear way that programmers
want, in terms of technical points, then it would be easy for somebody
to evade the intention of the GPL just by taking that line as the
instructions on how to do it.