Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You know the purpose of a linker?  It changes symbolic references in
> the code to fit the locations where the stuff and other material
> actually gets loaded into the address space.

Whatever***. On mainframes (things like Cobol, PLX, etc.) this 
is usually done by the SMP/E (installation and maintenance 
product) by customers. Forget this technical morass that merely 
obscures the fundamental issue for a moment. Let's talk about 
purely source code distribution. How can an aggregation of the 
CPL'ed and the GPL'ed stuff (e.g. in a tarball) possibly 
trigger "GPL incompatibility"?

regards,
alexander.

***) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/125_F3d_580.htm

<quote>

If the framing process does not create a derivative work, then 
mounting [...] does not create a derivative work. What is more, 
the ninth circuit erred in assuming that normal means of 
mounting and displaying art are easily reversible. A painting 
is placed in a wooden "stretcher" as part of the framing 
process; this leads to some punctures (commonly tacks or 
staples), may entail trimming the edges of the canvas, and may 
affect the surface of the painting as well. Works by Jackson 
Pollock are notoriously hard to mount without damage, given the 
thickness of their paint. As a prelude to framing, photographs, 
prints, and posters may be mounted on stiff boards using wax 
sheets, but sometimes glue or another more durable substance is 
employed to create the bond.

</quote>