Re: GPL traitor !

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-05-15, Joerg Schilling <js@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <gZWOl.22205$hX2.11921@newsfe19.iad>,
> Hyman Rosen  <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
>>Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> The law makes it clear that the GPL can’t affect the licenses  to
>> > those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesn’t matter.
>>
>>This is false, for static linking. The exclusive right to authorize
>>the copying of of a component into a linked program rests with the
>>copyright holder. Therefore, to copy and distribute such a linked
>>work requires permission from the copyright holder of each component,
>>and the GPL requires that the work as a whole be distributed under
>>the GPL.
>
> This is nonsense - sorry.
>
> There is no difference between static and dynamic linking.

   How can you possibly, honestly, as someone that's supposed to actually
have a clue, actually say this when you obviou sly know (assuming that 
you aren't just an imposter) that there are very real practical end user
difference between dynamic and static linking?

[deletia]

    Go torment someone that forked your work or something...

-- 
        On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

        When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were        |||
        meant to be computationally convenient rather than just     / | \
        arbitrarily assigned.