[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:15:45 +0100

Antonis Christofides wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:07:42 -0500
> Hyman Rosen <> wrote:
> > > Is dynamically linking my program with the Visual C++  (or
> > > Visual Basic) run-time library permitted under the GPL?
> >
> > The program as you distribute it does not contain a copy
> > of the dynamic library integrated into it, so it is not
> > relevant that the library is used when the program runs.
> > Since copyright restricts only the copying and distribution
> > of covered works, you may distribute your program under the
> > terms of the GPL even if it dynamically links to non-free
> > libraries when executed. The system library exemption of the
> > GPL never comes into play.
> I don't think that this is correct. When I distribute the program in
> binary form, I also need to distribute the "Corresponding Source"
> under the GPL-3, and this is defined as "all the source code needed
> to ... run the object code", except for the System Libraries. Since the
> dynamic library is needed to run my program, its source is part of the
> Corresponding Source, unless it is a System Library.

In Wallace v. FSF, the plaintiff claimed that the GPL (v2) covers 
collective works as the plain reading of the 'updated' GPLv3 suggests... 
and professional lawyers hired to defend the FSF's ass vehemently 

"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License." 

Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an
attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the
contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930,
933 (7th Cir. 2005)


Respectfully submitted,
s/ Curtis W. McCauley
Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)

Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software
Foundation, Inc.

One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002

Note that the "mere aggregation" clause is still there albeit in a more
muddied form.


"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if [snip nonsense]. When
the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to
the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative
works of the Document."


"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” if [snip nonsense]. Inclusion of a covered work in an
aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the

And note additional nonsense in the form of undefined terms such as
"extensions" and "larger program".

So you should better stay away from the GNU pseudo-legal
self-contradicting nonsense altogether. 


(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)

reply via email to

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