from the libertarian newspaper

[Luke -Jr]

On Monday 22 January 2007 16:21, you wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> > Nobody disputes that the code links to Linux, which the GPL forbids. By
> > using internal, unfixed function calls, it is also a derivative work.
> >
> > The GPL forbids linking (of any kind) with incompatibly licensed code.
>
> From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html I read:
>
> [quote]
> To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we
> add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
> everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's
> code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms
> are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally
> inseparable.
> [/quote]
>
> I think it would be a hard argument to say that software that makes
> calls into GPL code as being "derived from it."

Using an internal GPL'd API, it does.

> If we make the argument that calling GPL code from closed code
> violates it, or vica versa, then we have to show that nsidwrapper and
> WINE violate it too.

ndiswrapper is in a grey area since, at least in theory, a GPL-compatible NDIS 
driver exists.

WINE is not GPL'd, but even if it were, it would be a similar situation to 
ndiswrapper-- "GPL'd" software does exist built on the Win32 API.