[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL traitor !

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: GPL traitor !
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:12:30 -0400
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
By statutory definition, a compilation does *not* modify a preexisting work, hence sec. 2 never applies to compilations. So... what section of the GPL applies to compilations consisting
 of the preexisting "separately copyrighted" elements?

If there were no such section, then it would be infringement to conveystatically linked programs containing GPLed elements, since the default permission is none.

But the GPL gives such permission: <> To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work. ... You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce
 it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of
section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... * c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.

A statically linked program contains material which has been copied
 from the libraries it links with, and thus it may be conveyed as a
 whole under the GPL.

The inserted GPL library code is verbatim and unmodified. The whole
compilation is in no way "based" on unmodified GPL'd library code. The
library code is simply placed in memory segements aside other major
non GPL code segments and "called" by the non GPL code for rote
functional purposes. To claim the non GPL'd code is a program "based"
on GPL'd library routines is preposterous.


reply via email to

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