...your certificate is proof you hold copyright.

No, your certificate is proof that you claim copyright, and it's also necessary if you want to sue someone for a copyright breach.

For a current example, just after they tried suing IBM for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in 2003, SCO registered the copyrights to the Unix codebase, despite Novell, the copyright holders (or previous copyright holders) claiming that SCO didn't own any such thing. A judge did rule in Novell's favour, but SCO has won an appeal that grants them a trial (although this appeal is being appealed).

Regardless of the current state of the case, the fact that SCO had registered the copyrights wasn't proof of anything other than that they registered the copyrights.

Half-written website.
Vague, supposedly, heart-rending story with absolutely no verifiable details.
Unverifiable quotes on the front.
Big buttons asking for donations for the cause, whatever that is.

And...

The owner of the domain is one Joe Kaiser, who in his previous role as a 'foreclosure consultant', was found guilty of violating the Consumer Protection Act.

Conclusion:
Obvious scam. Avoid.

Svrl wls ago my '' ky brok, and to b honst, it's not causd any problms. I know som popl think that th 'Paus' ky or the 'Print Scrn' ky ar mor uslss, but you nvr know whn you might nd to stop scrolling your consol buffrs, or tak a scrnshot. It's much simplr and asir to larn to liv without your '' ky.

Tak it from m, I'v nvr looked back sinc I lost it.

Aim Hr

The only analogy I've been able to come up with that paints a good picture about why it's such a flawed model is what I call the Coca-Cola Principle....

No good! Don't understand! Your analogy has no cars!

I'm trying to communicate that the Windows license allows for other things than the Linux license, but this seems to be a exercise in futility.

The futility is in the fact that you don't understand (or are pretending not to understand) that some things you can do with Linux or Windows code are outwith the scope of both Windows and Linux licenses because the copyright holder does not have the right to stop you doing those things. It doesn't matter at all what a copyright license contains, if you don't need the copyright holder's permission to do whatever act you were attempting to do. Writing a program that happens to run on someone else's OS is one of those acts.

Actually, I wonder whether you understand what this thread is about. I'm just curious to know where the distinction between static and dynamic linking and system calls to GPL-ed code (not Windows!) is specified.

Well the real distinctions between what those three concepts are is fairly obvious to a programmer. I suggest enrolling in a programming course if you don't know.

If you're talking about the legal distinctions between those, as far as derived works of software is concerned, the consensus is that use of system calls doesn't make your program a derived work. And the consensus regarding dynamic and static linking seems to be that it's a big vague messy legal can of worms, and that nobody really knows where the boundary lies. The specification of derivative works, such as it is, is in statute and case law. Look up 17 USC for the American copyright statutes, and, well, there's reams and reams of case law, a lot of it very inconclusive. Knock yourself out using the Lexis database or your local university law library. There's no simple and correct answer, because simple and correct answers tend to put lawyers out of work.

And no, I don't know what this thread is about. You keep coming up with new, and only tangentially related, subjects every post (this post mentions dynamic versus static linking regarding derivative works, which is a subject that can keep GPL-related trolls happy for weeks). Presumably that's your tactic for pushing my buttons.

Sigh.

"I can dynamically link my code to one of the Windows redistributables and distribute the complete software without GPL-like restrictions, because the license allows me to. The GPL license does not automatically give me this right."

Don't change the subject. We're talking about writing programs that make system calls to operating system kernels, not distributing programs that link with redistributable libraries. The GPL doesn't 'give you' the right to write a Linux program, any more than the Windows EULA 'gives you the right' to write a Windows program. The lack of relevant restrictions in copyright law gives you that right.

It's interesting that you think that Linus' preamble does exempt Linux from some of the GPL requirements.

It does, but only in your hypothetical la-la neverland where copyright is so broad-reaching that all programs ever written for an OS are derivative works for that OS. In the real world, it doesn't.

Maybe the reasoning is that if I were a proper slashdotter then I'd know that Linux and the GPL are near-perfect and I wouldn't be asking these irrelevant, trolling, astroturfing questions

Nah, the reasoning is surely that if you were a proper slashdotter, you wouldn't say that you were here to 'push our buttons'. And prove it by repeatedly ask these silly questions that are almost always based on ridiculous hypotheses and false premises (see above for two examples), to gauge our 'predictable' reactions.

Read the Windows license. It's nothing at all like the GPL

Who said anything about licenses? We were talking about derivative works in copyright law. If the law is ridiculous enough that that using OS functions constitutes being a derivative work, nothing in the license can change that (although you might get permission from the copyright holder to use "his derivative work", ie, the programs you wrote for his OS).

Besides, Linus' comment in the copyright file does not necessarily have legal value

It probably does. It can easily be described as a promise by the kernel developers to not sue under certain circumstances, which is covered by the legal doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.

By the way, I like you ad hominem argument at the end of your reply. It illustrates well the value of your comments.

Ad hominem it may be, but spot on it is too. I just read this:

I come to Slashdot as LinuxAndLube to have fun. I press some buttons and observe the completely predictable behavior of the slashrobots. I do have an older account, with an ID much smaller than yours, but I don't see much point in using it these days.

and drew my own conclusions.

No. Because even if there was some country out there that thought that, say, every program running on Windows was technically part of Windows and therefore owned by Microsoft (and there isn't!), the clarification in the Linux copyright file suddenly becomes an exemption (since it clearly shows the intent of the authors) and the Linux devs would be estopped from suing people who took them at their word.

Hows today's trolling coming along?

The GPL is very clear. If it's a derivative work of someone else's GPL'ed code, it ought to have a GPL-compatible license. If not, the GPL doesn't necessarily apply.

What's not clear is what does and doesn't constitute a derivative work in software. That's the job of case and statute law, not the GPL.

They're not.

What the GP probably refers to is that the Linux copyright file does state that normal use of Linux system calls does not create a derivative work per copyright law. That's more in line with a clarification than an exemption - in that Richard Stallman would agree with it.

(If there are exemptions from 'Normal GPL rules' in Linux, it's in the nature of the allowances the kernel devs have for nonGPled kernel modules, such as the ATI/Nvidia blobs, where it's all a big legal can of worms as to what is, and isn't, a derivative work.)

Except that supporters of the Free Software philosophy believe that refusing to give source to people who receive your binaries IS an abuse of power.

But nobody really cares about that. We all know that you're just redefining the word 'abuse' retroactively to cover up the fact that you didn't even read the fucking article summary and got laughably owned by everyone who cared to hit the reply button.

Since you've STILL apparently not even read the article summary, allow me to point out that it's VNC (as in the desktop sharing system), not VLC, the multimedia client.

It's an idiosyncracy of French law. The plaintiff here was a customer who did, yes, successfully sue for the source code. It probably couldn't happen in the US or UK.

FSF France's take on this finds this noteworthy:

"But what makes this ruling unique is the fact that the suit was filed by a user of the software, instead of a copyright holder. It's a commonly held belief that only the copyright holder of a work can enforce the license's terms - but that's not true in France. People who received software under the GNU GPL can also request compliance, since the license grants them rights from the authors."

Just when you thought the German courts were GPL-friendly, this shows up. Vive la France!

... how can you trust these guys to write your DNS software? They're the very guys who were contracted to write Bind9, the foremost open source domain name server, which they're now complaining about.

And, from TFA:

You really do need to look under the hood and kick the tyres. Maybe it's a Ferrari on the outside, but it could be an Austin Maxi on the inside.

Reconcile THAT little gem with support for closed source software.

According to "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh, this is/was Israel's nuclear strategy. The idea is that if Israel's existence was threatened (which looked very plausible during the Yom Kippur War) then they would fire off a couple of nukes at Russia and the retaliation would blow up the world. The US knew about this, and so gives/gave Israel massive amounts of military aid and materiel.

Interesting theory. Apparently even piddling little nuclear powers can play the Rand Corporation/Dead Hand/Dr Strangelove destroy-life-as-we-know-it nuclear insanity game.