Re: GPL traitor !

[David Kastrup]

Andrew Halliwell <spike1@ponder.sky.com> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>>> Dynamic linking delays the act of copying, but it remains an
>>>> essential integral part of putting the program to its intended
>>>> use.
>>>
>>> The difference between static and dynamic linking is that in
>>> static linking the copying occurs as part of making and
>>> distributing the program, and in dynamic linking the copying
>>> occurs, if it does, as part of running the program. This is not
>>> an irrelevant detail; it's an essential difference.
>> 
>> It isn't.  The essential copy is the copy in the computer main memory,
>> and that is the same whether you link dynamically or statically.
>
> Wrong. If you link statically, the copy exists within the code itself.
> Any disc, printout, CD, flash memory stick that contains the program ALSO
> contains the statically compiled portions of the library.
>
> With dynamic linking the library exists seperately on the computer and is
> only loaded into memory when it is required on execution of the program.
>  
>> Whether you deliver a script which does the static linking, or whether
>> you call the dynamic linker makes no difference.
>
> It does, y'know.

A gun stored in parts is still a gun.

-- 
David Kastrup