Re: license question with non-GPL library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Merijn de Weerd wrote:
>> 
>> On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
>> > Man oh man, you're really krank. It doesn't matter how you label computer
>> > program works ("application" vs "library" is utterly irrelevant) which work
>> > together in combination. In MySQL v. Progress, the Gemini (transactional
>> > storage engine) was a "library" (used by MySQL and statically linked to the
>> > MySQL code), not "application".
>> 
>> Go read my other post. This question has *NOTHING* to do with
>> whether a derivative work has been created.
>
> Apart from Judge Saris, drop an email to The GPL Enforcer Moglen, stupid 
> Merijn.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html
>
> "The GPL uses copyright doctrine to achieve the result of the principle 
> that we should all ``share and share alike.'' Thus anyone who combines 
> GPL-licensed software with other program code must release the combined 
> work under GPL, and must provide the source code for the entire 
> derivative work."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Got it now, idiot?

Uh, you are confused, nothing new.  Yes, source code of the whole work
(which is derived from its parts) has to be provided, but not because
the law's idea and rules about a derived work come into play here, but
because the GPL says so: it says you have to license the work as a
whole, or not distribute the GPLed portions.

Those parts that are from somebody else have to be licensed under the
GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL, or
not at all.  Not because of copyright law, but because that's the
condition the GPL places on redistribution.

Got it now, dearest Alexander?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum