Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> In the GPL context, 17 USC 117 covers not only dynamic linking but also
> static linking. 
>
> I'm talking about distribution of "exact copies [that is, exact copies
> of the GPL'd stuff statically linked] prepared in accordance with the
> provisions of this section..."
>
> See 17 USC 117 and CONTU.
>
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
>
> There is no difference between static and dynamic linking.

No, this is false. A statically linked program is a collective
work containing separately copyrighted elements. Permission to
include an element in a collective work is separate from any
other permission one has to use that work:
    
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-.html>
    § 201. Ownership of copyright
    ...
    (c)  Contributions to Collective Works.
    — Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective
    work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as
    a whole, and vests initially in the author of the
    contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the
    copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright
    in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only
    the privilege of reproducing and distributing the
    contribution as part of that particular collective work,
    any revision of that collective work, and any later
    collective work in the same series.

In order to copy and distribute a statically linked program
which contains GPLed elements, separate permission is needed
for those elements apart from any other permission one might
have already. The GPL grants this permission only when the
work as a whole is distributed under the GPL.