The article makes the claim that inline functions and macros in header files are copyrightable. This is plausible (based on what I've heard from lawyers). It th

The article makes the claim that inline functions and macros in header files are copyrightable. This is plausible (based on what I've heard from lawyers). It then goes on to suggest that applications which use Android's NDK could be declared GPLed if there is a successful challenge to Android's cleaning of header files. This seems far-fetched. Let's work it through. First, Google would have to acknowledge that its headers were GPLed. Presumably this would involve a court case. Brought by who? And on what grounds? Then, somebody, perhaps the winner of the court case, would have to get the application developer to acknowledge that their application was GPLed. This would presumably be another court case. Again, brought by who, and on what grounds? Assuming you did go through these heroic and precedent-setting court cases, you would end up with the source code to a shared library, and you would have to go through it all again to get access to the Java code or other application components which are executed by interpreters. The whole piece reads like Slashdot-esque fear-mongering. The article then goes on to suggest that Google has "unlocked the kernel from the restrictions of GPL2" and could "create a non-GPL'd fork of the Linux kernel". I can't imagine how they imagine this could possibly be the case, even if some legal challenge determines that they do have non-GPLed headers, and the paper doesn't clarify.