Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Do you mean that if somebody adds functionality to GPL program, and
> arranges for this new functionality to be called through a socket call
> (substitute technically correct terms here) rather than a normal function
> call, that somebody can remain within the terms of the GPL without
> licensing his new stuff under the GPL, regardless of how intertwined the
> new functionality is with the original program?  If so, I think you're
> mistaken.  But please try and convince me otherwise.

Yes, that's what I mean. Doing it by function call is OK as well.
The only thing that forces the foreign code to come under the GPL
is if the binary program is built as a statically linked whole
incorporating the GPL and non-GPL code. It is that binding into a
single work that makes the non-GPL portion fall under the "work as
a whole" clause and requires that all of it be distributed under
the GPL.

You appear to believe that modifying the source of a GPLed program
so that it invokes a function which is provided separately under a
non-GPL license violates the GPL even when the modified program is
distributed *as source*. Is that true? If so, then you are certainly
incorrect, since copyright law contains no concept of a computer
program "working". Copyright law doesn't consider functionality,
just text, just expression.