GNU GPL

STEALTH COMMUNISM:
THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GNU GPL)
AND THE FUTURE OF LINUX
(c) www.imagtek.com
Free Use and Distribution in Unmodified Form
08 / 2025

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE!

LINUX is the only operating system that sues developers for control of their Intellectual Private Property (IP). This explains its dismal 3.82% share of the global operating-system marketplace. LINUX is distributed under the ‘GNU General Public License’ (GNU GPL) aka ‘CopyLeft’ . This license imposes upon Developers a system of coercive Collectivism that solicits informants from the general public to target ‘enemies’ for prosecution. This System has a familiar history.

It is called Communism.

The GNU GPL attacks the foundations of Free Open Source Software (FOSS) by forcing Marxist ideology upon software development. The license cancels individual freedom for Collectivism via the ruse 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) re-brands its Marxist attack upon individual freedom (https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles ) as ‘Software’ freedom.

Deep within the massive text of this rambling, sermonizing, Manifesto-License lies the IP hijack mechanism of a sophisticated viral klepto-algorithm (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#license-text ).

‘ 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 that 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 is ‘based on’ the GNU GPL component because, wait for it… that is what ‘The resulting work is called…’.

SHAZAM!!!

By altering the meaning of a single word, Copyright protection of your application disappears; hijacked as ‘covered work’ of the GNU GPL. But this claim is baseless magical thinking. The GNU GPL cites no legal argument, mandate, or precedent for its claimed privilege to void lawful License and Copyright of IP by mere association. This is because it has none.

The GNU GPL is a Marxist fraud that violates multiple established Principles of Law. It is founded upon the tactic of altering the meaning of a recognized legal term via edict, then presenting the result as legally binding. The GNU GPL is not legally binding. It is a delusional fabrication 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 supersede 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 Statutory Law, coercive liabilities may only be imposed via explicit contractual agreement signed by named, informed, and consenting counter-partys. By Law, there is no such thing as a ‘Freely Distributed’ license that Voids lawful Copyright, nor a legally binding contract asserting Collectivization of private property without signatures of property owners. 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 traceable 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 not a joke. It places all FOSS developers under threat of a Lawsuit by subsidized Communist fanatics of the ‘Software Freedom Conservancy’ (SFC) (http://sfconservancy.org); the ‘Compliance Organization’ for the ‘Free Software Foundation’ (FSF). The mission of the SFC is to litigate for Collective control of proprietary IP, anyone suspected of GNU GPL contagion (http://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance ).

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 not a joke. (http://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 significant resources in a ‘GNU GPL Code Audit’ using ‘peer reviewed GNU GPL compliance scanners’ to ‘Certify’ absence of GNU GPL viral contagion. Absent a clear ‘Audit’, your IP is subject to GNU GPL litigation.

The FSF calls its legal Frankenstein ‘CopyLeft’, yet there is NO discernible difference between Copyleft and Communism. None. Re-branding Communism is intellectually dishonest and 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’ is a full time job for a legal professional  (http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html ). Thus, the FSF / SFC see no irony in running a jobs program for Lawyers suing Developers. As if lost in a fever dream, FOSS Developers are expected to assign a full-time ‘Open Source Compliance Officer to monitor and insure GPL compliance’. The Fools spewing this bullshit can pound sand.

FSF / SFC websites broadcast propaganda casting non-Communist developers as dishonest thugs (http://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, N Korea, Pol Pot and their ilk argued that summary executions are a last resort for ‘unreasonable people’ resisting Communism.

But…

The GNU GPL is legally Void under Statutory Law. It relies upon the threat of hugely expensive litigation [Lawfare]  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 a subsidized organization of Communist fanatics suing to Collectivize their IP, so the rational decision has been to abandon LINUX. Imagtek Publishing LLC creates FOSS Apps for LINUX, but doing so required extensive research to create a license that legally neutralizes  the GNU GPL klepto-algorithm ( http://imagtek.com/Files/CDLTlicense.txt ).

By Law, developers retain Copyright to their Freely Distributed Works. They may solicit Improvement of their works by others; co-own Copyright to improvements, and require a notice advising presence of their work in another work. But that is the FULL EXTENT of Developer Rights for ‘Freely Distributed Works’ under Copyright Law. There are NO Statutory 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. Developers are free to license their works as they like, but the GNU GPL is legally Void absent an explicit contract addendum, or Copyright Disclaimers, bearing notarized signatures of all parties.

THE GNU GPL VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS

People have a legal right to practice individual Free Enterprise under protection of Statutory Law in a stable language. The GNU GPL takes away this right.

People have a legal right to undisputed control of original IP they create. The GNU GPL takes away this right.

People have a legal right to integrate FOSS components into applications without viral exposure to undisclosed coercive liability. The GNU GPL takes away this right.

People have a legal right to distribute IP under legal Copyright and License that cannot be hijacked by organized Communist Fraud in the courts. The GNU GPL takes away this right.

People have a legal right to earn a livelihood developing software using FOSS components without risk of hugely expensive litigation against subsidized Communists. The GNU GPL takes away this right.

The GNU GPL is a cynical vector of Communism that has nothing to do with human Freedom. Human Freedom is amply served by the unrestricted FOSS movement ( https://github.com/resources/articles/software-development/what-is-open-source-software). LINUX is a Premier computer operating system due to the genius of its coders, but widespread adoption by App developers is crippled by legal 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-3.0.html#license-text

fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles

defectivebydesign.org

sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/

sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/enforcement-strategy.html

sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-code-similarity.html

github.com

Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (2004) [1848]. ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’