Brad Kuhn writes: "But, to deny that it's possible to rewrite a C library for Linux under a license that isn't GPLv2 would also imply immediately the (incorrect) conclusion that [...]"

This is pointless and may mislead some readers.

Without a doubt it's possible to do a non-GPL library. In fact, my blog post on this subject advocated glibc all the way, which is LGPL'd, not GPL'd.

But the fact that it's possible (if done right) doesn't mean that Google's reprocessing and repurposing of the material in question is in line with copyright law and the GPL.