[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: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:48:24 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux)

Hyman Rosen <> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> But we are not talking about copying, but assembling.  The act of
>> creating a mere in-memory copy does not cause additional worries, as
>> this is the _intended_ use of the copy.  But dynamic linking is not mere
>> copying, it is _assembling_ the separate parts into a coherent whole
>> executable in a single memory space.
> The GPL is a copyright license, granting additional permissions
> on covered works beyond what is allowed by copyright law alone.
> A program which when executed will invoke libraries dynamically
> does not contain copies of those libraries.

The executed memory image will contain them.  That is the whole point.
Do you actually _know_ the mechanisms of dynamic linking?  It does not
appear like you do.

> The person who runs the program is responsible for its execution.
> You erroneously believe that the author of the program is responsible,
> but that is irrelevant because the person running the program owns the
> dynamic libraries on his computer and is _authorizing_ the copy
> essential to the use of the program.

Oh, you are talking about a commissioned work where the person running
the program has explicitly asked for a program to integrate calls to a
specific dynamic library?  If you do, how do you reckon that the
commissioner need not heed the GPL when further redistributing the
program.  And if you don't, where is the authorization?

> You erroneously believe that the author of the program is responsible
> for an "assembly" of the program when the user executes it, but that
> too is irrelevant because the law declares that an _adaptation_ of a
> program essential for use is non-infringing.

It certainly is non-infringing in its own, but it does not suddenly
dissolve any other infringement.  If you don't have permission to use
the library in a particular way, you don't magically get the permission
because you create a copy in computer memory.

> You erroneously believe execution of the program results in a GPL
> violation.

Nonsense.  The preparation and distribution of a total program requiring
the execution of the library is the GPL violation.

You just don't get the difference.

>> Copying, not linking.  Linking is not just copying.
> US copyright law declares as non-infringing any copy or _adaptation_
> necessary to use the work. Dynamic linking is adaptation. It is
> non-infringing.

But it creates a derivative work.  And the licenses of all parts need to
be satisfied when using that.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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