Re: GPL traitor !

[Joerg Schilling]

In article <gZWOl.22205$hX2.11921@newsfe19.iad>,
Hyman Rosen  <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
>Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> The law makes it clear that the GPL can’t affect the licenses  to
> > those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesn’t matter.
>
>This is false, for static linking. The exclusive right to authorize
>the copying of of a component into a linked program rests with the
>copyright holder. Therefore, to copy and distribute such a linked
>work requires permission from the copyright holder of each component,
>and the GPL requires that the work as a whole be distributed under
>the GPL.

This is nonsense - sorry.

There is no difference between static and dynamic linking.
If you believe that you may distribute something in case it was 
dynamically linked, you may do so as well for the staically linked case.

If you do not treat static linking the same as you treat dynamic linking,
you would get into trouble on Linux as on Linux even a dynamically linked
binary contains parts from glibc. The idea that there is a difference comes
from the incorrect assumption that you need to put a binary compiled from
GPL sources under GPL too. You simply cannot and it is sufficient to 
follow GPL section 3.

-- 
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
      js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
      joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily