[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GPL traitor !

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 20:23:21 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux)

Hyman Rosen <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I can't put instructions for dynamic linking into a program and
>> blame the dynamic linker or the person running the program according
>> to instructions for the created in-memory copy.
> There is no blame or illegal act involved. Those dynamic libraries
> are already legally present on that person's computer. Their license,
> if they are under the GPL, permits them to be executed without any
> restrictions or requirements. US copyright law also allows copies of
> them to be made on the machine if the making of those copies is
> essential to running them.
> So most certainly, you can put instructions for dynamic linking
> into a program and incur no penalty or requirements for such an
> act. The actions of a computer program do not in any way affect
> the copyrights on that program. The program does not carry out
> any illegal or unauthorized actions when executed.

Sigh.  A program is not a legally responsible entity.  The responsible
party is the _writer_ of the program.  I can't push away the
responsibility about what a program of mine does to somebody else.

Computer viruses are _exclusively_ executed by people different from the
virus author, on thousands of computers.  Does it make _them_ reponsible
for what their computers do?  Does it make the infected _programs_
responsible?  Does it make the _computers_ responsible?  Does it make
the _virus_ responsible?

No, the responsible party is the virus _author_.  What happens is a
consequence of what _he_ did and intended.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]