> Finally, remember that the only legal text you are bound by (if at all) is the actual text of the GPL license. It does not matter what Stallman says he intended with the GPL, or what the GPL FAQ says should happen in some fantasy land.
Tell that to the lawyers when they send you a cease and desist.
The reason non-gpl compliant software don't touch GPL is not because there might be a loophole, it's that there is ni precident set in court and they don't be the ones needing to do it. This requires lawyers with expertise in both copyright law and contract law. It doesn't matter what is copyrightable if you agreed to a contract that you wouldn't do that and that is what the GPL is, a contract that you agree to that mentions how you are allowed to use the code in question.
In the end whether the GPL is enforceable in these edge cases is up to the courts not your interpretation of it and if you project becomes a roaring success do you really want to spend time and money on lawyers that you could rather spend on development.
The author quotes Google vs Oracle where the case was about using headers for compatibility: IIRC to provide an alternative implementation.
This is different from vv which uses the headers to link to the GPLed code.
IN most jurisdictions the GPL is a license, not a contract, and is definitely designed not to be a contract.
That said, as far as I can see vv is in breach of the GPL. This is a case of someone who wants there to be a loophole convincing themselves there is one.
I would definitely not redistribute vv because of that. More importantly I think it likely that people packaging software for Linux repos are not going to want to take the risk, and many will object to trying to find a loophole in GPL on principle too.
> it's that there is ni precident set in court and they don't be the ones needing to do it.
Ah yes, "ni precident". I would suggest people instead get advice from someone who has some idea what they're talking about and a good grasp of the English language to communicate it.
Tell that to the lawyers when they send you a cease and desist.
The reason non-gpl compliant software don't touch GPL is not because there might be a loophole, it's that there is ni precident set in court and they don't be the ones needing to do it. This requires lawyers with expertise in both copyright law and contract law. It doesn't matter what is copyrightable if you agreed to a contract that you wouldn't do that and that is what the GPL is, a contract that you agree to that mentions how you are allowed to use the code in question.
In the end whether the GPL is enforceable in these edge cases is up to the courts not your interpretation of it and if you project becomes a roaring success do you really want to spend time and money on lawyers that you could rather spend on development.