I have seen a lot of misinformation posted (and then strongly upvoted) in another thread related to this controversy. I would like to offer a very specific quot

I have seen a lot of misinformation posted (and then strongly upvoted) in another thread related to this controversy. I would like to offer a very specific quotation which I believe illustrates the crux of the issue, excerpted from the linked pdf: Determining copyrightability is thus a fact-specific, case-by-case exercise. In the case of the Linux kernel header files, most would likely be copyrightable (even with comments removed) because the headers include many macros, inline functions, and other logic that clearly qualifies as expression. In fact, there are several Linux kernel header files that consist almost entirely of static inline function, which is generally regarded as copyrightable expression. For instance, the Linux kernel header file <sys/byteorder.h> consists of an optimized byteswapping function that was included by the Linux kernel developers because it was clever and well-written – the kind of creativity that constitutes copyright protection. (The initial thread from the Linux kernel mailing list that contributes this particular inline function and discusses the performance benefit it supplies is available at http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/11/29/68 http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/11/29/68 .) When it created the “clean” Bionic headers, Google kept this inline function. See http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/bionic.git;a=blob;f=libc/kernel/archx86/asm/byteorder.h;h=a839798c8a476876968e6c435069460a55d9252d;hb=froyo-release http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/bionic.git;a=blob;.... (end quotation)It seems clear these header files do include copyrighted original source code that cannot be stripped of the GPL.