STEALTH COMMUNISM: THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GNU GPL) AND THE FUTURE OF LINUX AND FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE (FOSS) (c) www.imagtek.com Free Use and Distribution in Unmodified Form 05 / 2025 DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE! LINUX is distributed under the 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL) aka 'CopyLeft'. This license imposes upon Developers a system of coercive Collectivism, hijack of Intellectual Private Property (IP), designation of 'enemies', and solicitation of secret informants against 'enemies' by a 'Compliance Organization' for prosecution in the courts. This System has a familiar history. It is called Communism. LINUX is the only operating system that sues developers for control of their IP, and this is reflected in its dismal 3.82% share of the global operating-system marketplace. It does this via the GNU GPL, which attacks the foundations of FOSS by forcing Marxist ideology upon software development. The license cancels individual freedom for Collectivism via the claim of 'protecting the freedom of others'. The GNU GPL conforms to Marxist ideology in its pursuit of a Collectivist Utopia, and in its resort to coercion to enforce ideological compliance. That is Pure, by-the-book, Communism. Clueless of irony, the 'Free Software Foundation' (FSF) brands its Marxist attack upon Developer freedom as 'Software' freedom. Deep within the massive text of this rambling, sermonizing, Manifesto-License lies the IP hijack mechanism of a sophisticated network crawling klepto-algorithm. ' To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring Copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work. A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program. ' --GNU General Public License Version 3, 29 June 2007 ' The above is a cunning legal over-reach into Magical Thinking. The GNU GPL asserts the protections of Copyright Law, then claims it Voids Copyright Law for all non-GNU GPL licensed IP that it touches. It does this by altering the meaning of the word 'modify'. If your FOSS application contains a single component licensed under the GNU GPL, the license claims control over your entire application. All of your work is a 'modified version' or 'based on' the GNU GPL component because, wait for it... that is what 'The resulting work is called...'. SHAZAM!!! By re-defining a single word, Copyright protection of your application magically disappears; hijacked as 'covered work' of the GNU GPL. But this magical claim is baseless. The GNU GPL cites no legal argument, mandate, or precedent for its claimed privilege to void lawful License and Copyright by mere association. This is because it has none. The entire legal Foundation of the GNU GPL is based upon the argument that altering the meaning of a word alters Law that uses the word. The GNU GPL thus presumes to supercede the entire edifice of Intellectual Property Law via edict. It is a legal absurdity to assert that long established Contract and Copyright Law is cancelled by altering the meaning of a single word. The GNU GPL is a delusional Marxist fraud that violates multiple established Principles of Law. FOSS is by definition 'Freely Distributed'. FOSS works are released to developers with no constraints upon access and use. In contrast, the GNU GPL dictates voluminous coercive liabilities that allegedly supercede License and Copyright of proprietary IP. But there is a Catch-22; by dictating coercive liabilities GNU GPL works forfeit legal status of a lawful 'Free Distribution'. Under Statuatory Law, coercive liabilities may only be imposed via explicit contractual agreement signed by named, informed, and consenting counter-partys. There is no such thing as a 'Freely Distributed' license that Voids lawful Copyright, nor a legally binding Contract lacking signatures. Software that attempts to impose coercive liabilities upon developers is not FOSS, and it is Fraud to state that it is. It gets worse. The GNU GPL is Recursive; meaning it claims Collective control of any computer app contaminated by a FOSS component tracable through a network of 'association' to an app containing a GNU GPL component. This viral dynamic creates unbounded association networks where all FOSS components of a GNU GPL contaminated app become vectors of the viral GNU GPL contagion spreading throughout the FOSS Community. This is no joke. It places all FOSS developers under threat of a Lawsuit by subsidized Communist fanatics of the 'Software Freedom Conservancy' (SFC); the 'Compliance Organization' for the 'Free Software Foundation' (FSF). The mission of the SFC is to litigate for Communist control of proprietary IP, anyone suspected of GNU GPL contagion. And it gets even worse. FOSS developers are now threatened if any part of their application is 'similar' to a GNU GPL work. Commonly used algorithms have similar expressions in source code that FSF / SFC exploit as a pretext for IP Fraud. This fanaticism is on display in the SFC 'CCFinderX Clone Detector' that flags a 'GNU GPL Violation' at a 3.68% 'Similarity Ratio'; as computed by 'peer reviewed algorithms'. This is no joke. (Link: sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ vmware-code-similarity.html) If a single FOSS component of your App gets flagged, your IP is subject to GNU GPL litigation. And if you thought it couldn't get worse, well it gets worse. The FSF / SFC assert an 'obligation' by FOSS developers to invest resources in a 'GNU GPL Code Audit' using 'peer reviewed GNU GPL compliance scanners' to 'Certify' absence of GNU GPL contagion. Absent a clear 'Audit', your IP is subject to GNU GPL litigation. The FSF calls this legal Frankenstein 'CopyLeft', yet there is NO discernable difference between the GNU GPL and Communism. None. Re-branding Communism makes it no less Communist than re-branding a duck makes it less a duck. Competence in the massive text of legalese drivel specifying 'CopyLeft Compliance' (Link: copyleft.org/guide) is a full time job for a legal professional. Thus, the FSF / SFC see no irony in running a jobs program for Lawyers suing Developers. Inspired by some sort of fever dream, the official FSF / SFC 'CopyLeft Compliance Guide' dictates that Developers assign a 'GNU GPL Compliance Officer' to every FOSS coding project. Their task is to manage GNU GPL code audits and collect all App source code, associated IP, and detailed build instructions for open distribution under the GNU GPL. The Fools spewing this bullshit can go pound sand. FSF / SFC websites broadcast demented propaganda casting non-Communist developers as dishonest thugs (Links: sfconservancy.org, defectivebydesign.org) while assuring us of FSF / SFC 'benevolence toward the Community'; conditional upon you being 'reasonable' and 'doing the right thing' to avoid 'painful consequences'. This standard template for Communist propaganda has not varied in over a century. FSF / SFC Communists argue that lawsuits are a 'last resort' for 'unreasonable people' resisting Communism. Decades ago, Bolsheviks, Red Guards, and Pol Pot argued that mass executions were a 'last resort' for such 'unreasonable people'. But... The GNU GPL is legally Void under Statuatory Law. It relies upon the threat of hugely expensive litigation [Lawfare] in unpredictable courts with Marxist judges rather than viable legal argument to impose Communism upon FOSS Developers. Due to the viral nature of GNU GPL fraud, litigation exposure is extreme. Independent developers cannot afford courtroom battles with subsidized Communist fanatics suing for control of their IP, so the rational decision has been to walk away from the LINUX market. Imagtek Publishing LLC creates FOSS Apps for LINUX, but doing so required a study of Law and creating a unique license that neutralizes the GNU GPL by turning it against itself (Link:imagtek.com/docs/CDLTlicense.txt). By Law, developers retain Copyright to their Freely Distributed Works. They may solicit Improvement of their works by others; share Copyright to improvements, and require a notice advising presence of their work in a larger work. But that is the FULL EXTENT of Developer Rights for 'Freely Distributed Works' under Copyright Law. There are NO Statuatory grounds for Claims against IP that hosts a 'Freely Distributed' work. Such liabilities disqualify a work as a 'Free Distribution' and require an explicit Contractual Agreement signed by all parties as prerequisite to coercive liabilities beyond Copyright Law. GNU GPL developers who feel 'harmed' by non-Marxists using their 'freely distributed' work should refrain from freely distributing their work. Developers are free to donate their time and to license their works as they like, but the GNU GPL is legally Void except as part of a contract bearing signatures of all effected parties signing away their IP rights under Copyright Law. THE GNU GPL VIOLATES BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS People have a basic human right to practice individual Free Enterprise under the protection of statuatory Law. The GNU GPL takes away this right. People have a basic human right to undisputed legal control of original IP they create. The GNU GPL takes away this right. People have a basic human right to integrate FOSS components into applications without exposure to undisclosed liability. The GNU GPL takes away this right. People have a basic human right to distribute IP under legal Copyright and License that cannot be hijacked by Marxist Fraud. The GNU GPL takes away this right. Human freedom is amply served by the unrestricted FOSS movement. The GNU GPL has nothing to do with human Freedom and must be deprecated for LINUX to become a serious Applications development platform. LINUX is a premier computer operating system due to the genius of its coders, but it is crippled by litigation exposure to Communist Fraud. LINUX does not need Marxist ideology to succeed. The FOSS movement does not need it. No one needs the GNU GPL. Intellectual Slavery is Not Freedom. References: gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt copyleft.org/guide fsf.org defectivebydesign.org ***Note: gruesome 'devouring Ork' video removed...(06/23) sfconservancy.org sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/ sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-code-similarity.html Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (2004) [1848]. 'Manifesto of the Communist Party'