Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Hyman Rosen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> What you want to do is chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange a mere aggregation (for
> the purpose of execution/running the code) into a derivative work.

No. The linked executable incorporating GPLed libraries is not a
derivative work of those libraries as understood by copyright law,
because there is no transformative significant work of authorship
upon the GPLed code. As for mere aggregation, GPLv2 says:

    <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
    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.

A statically linked executable program containing GPLed code with
other code is not a mere aggregation; it is a purposeful creation
of a combined work, and to copy and distribute such a work requires
permission from the copyright holders of the pieces. For the GPLed
pieces, such permission is available only if the combined work as a
whole is distributed under the terms of the GPL.

As I said, you are now arguing "red is blue". The only one you will
convince is yourself. Certainly no judge will fall for such sophistry.