Re: GPL traitor !

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program,
> > > and arranges for this new functionality to be called through a
> > > socket call (substitute technically correct terms here) rather
> > > than a normal function call, that somebody can remain within
> > > the terms of the GPL without licensing his new stuff under the
> > > GPL, regardless of how intertwined the new functionality is
> > > with the original program?  If so, I think you're mistaken.
> > > But please try and convince me otherwise.
>
> > Yes, that's what I mean. Doing it by function call is OK as well.
> >  The only thing that forces the foreign code to come under the
> > GPL is if the binary program is built as a statically linked
> > whole incorporating the GPL and non-GPL code. It is that binding
> > into a single work that makes the non-GPL portion fall under the
> > "work as a whole" clause and requires that all of it be
> > distributed under the GPL.
>
> That's one of the things that requires GPL licensing.  The
> overarching thing that mandates new code being licensed under the
> GPL is its being a modification of a GPL program.

Why obsessively and repetitively continue to post such tripe about
purported GPL "requirements". You and a thousand other Freetards have
incessently spammed the internet for years with these bogus claims
about GPL "requirements". Why not go engineer some software of your
own and cease attempting to convince others that the GPL can somehow
steal control of their exclusively created and copyrighted code?

> > You appear to believe that modifying the source of a GPLed
> > program so that it invokes a function which is provided
> > separately under a non-GPL license violates the GPL even when the
> > modified program is distributed *as source*. Is that true?
>
> No.  If the invoked function is truly separate (e.g., calling an
> emailing library function from  GCC), it needn't be GPL'd.  If the
> invoked function is essentially a part of the calling program, it
> must also be GPL.
>
> This is covered by section 2 of GPL2 ("... and can be reasonably 
> considered independent and separate works in themselves ...") and 
> section 5 of GPL3 ("...  which are not by their nature extensions
> of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to
> form a larger program ....").
>
> > If so, then you are certainly incorrect, since copyright law
> > contains no concept of a computer program "working".
>
> Sadly, neither do some software engineers.  ;-(
>
> > Copyright law doesn't consider functionality, just text, just 
> > expression.
>
> Copyright licenses for software do however deal with functionality.
>  Copyright law also has the notion of "derived works".