Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > > No, it's copyright holders exercising their right to control
> > >  how their works may be copied and distributed.
> >
> > cite to the statutes
>
> 17 USC 106 § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject 
> to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this 
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
>  following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or 
> phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the 
> copyrighted work; ...

> When someone creates a program which includes another's 
> copyrighted work, they are forbidden to make and distribute 
> copies by 17 USC 106 (1), and so must obtain authorization from 
> the rights holder to do so.

Section 1 of the GPL allows such copying:

 "1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any
warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of
this License along with the Program."

> It does not matter whether the new work is a derivative of the 
> old;

OH YES IT DOES MATTER HYMEN.

> if copies of the copyrighted code are incorporated into the new 
> work, as they are when programs are statically linked, making and
> distributing these copies must be authorized.

They are. See the GPL section 1 (supra).

> The GPL grants such permission, provided that the new work in its
> entirety is licensed under the GPL.

BALONEY. What you want to do is chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange a mere
aggregation into a derivative work.

There you go again -- mooooooooooooooooooooooving the goalposts.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)