Big blow to proprietary linking nonsense.

[7]

RJack the stupid 1 wrote:

> The following decision probably settles most questions touching upon
> copyright law and dynamically linking to open source code and vice
> versa. Simply placing a hook in GPL source code to call independent
> proprietary drivers or libraries is fully protected by 17 USC sec. 117.
> Simply dynamically calling GPL code doesn't involve copyright questions
> at all.

Nope.

'Simply placing a hook' is no different 
to saying embedding irrespective of how that embedding
was achieved.

Once proprietary code is embedded into GPL'd code
the whole product now has two incompatible licenses.
And you may be violating both licenses.

As for the embedded GPL, you can use it for your own
private use under the terms of the GPL. But you can't distribute 
it if it violates the GPL. You can distribute after you
remove the GPL'd code and/or substitute it with your own code,
or remove the embedded proprietary code, or re-license the proprietary
code with one that is compatible with the GPL license.


 
> "Other passages of the report, however, describe the right to modify
> programs in a manner that goes far beyond concern with compatibility and
> strongly suggests that the writers of the CONTU Report envisioned a
> loose concept of necessity that would encompass our very issue — the
> addition of features so that a program better serves the needs of the
> customer for which it was created. The report states:
> 
> 'Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for
> which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion
> of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use
> would fall within this right, *as would the right to add features to the
> program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition.*'
> 
> Id. (emphasis added). Without question, the CONTU Report, in the
> italicized text, specifically contemplates protection for modifications
> adding features, rather than merely securing continued functioning of
> what was originally created. The CONTU Report thus persuasively rebuts
> Krause's narrow reading of § 117(a)(1), which would authorize only
> changes needed to permit the program to function."; Krause v. Titleserv,
> Inc., 402 F. 3d 119 (2nd Cir. 2006)
> 
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16327862974386079523&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
> 
> The CONTU phrase ". . . as would the right to add features to the
> program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition" is a
> blow to those who would restrict the scope of 17 USC sec. 117.
> 
> Recognized copyright authority William Patry (lead copyright attorney
> for Google) noted this decision with approval.