Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Hyman Rosen]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Usually, "owner of a copy" refers to a copy that the copyright owner or
> his representative or retailer already made, and then physically gave to
> you, e.g., on CD-ROM.  I doubt that you are the owner of a copy if you
> made the copy yourself.

You're wrong, but in any case, if the library is under the GPL,
the GPL says "You may make, run and propagate covered works that
you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license
otherwise remains in force."

Let's review. Someone creates a library and distributes it under
the GPL. Let's call it libGNU, and suppose that it exists in DLL
form. I create a program that dynamically links to libGNU and
uses its services. Let's call it HyProg. I assert that I may
distribute copies of HyProg unaccompanied by libGNU under any
terms I wish. The FSF asserts that HyProg must be distributed
under the GPL. I do not believe that there is any legal basis
for the FSF's claim. If you do, please explain.