Re: GPL traitor !

[David Kastrup]

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

> Look at it this way...
> You're reading a text book. It makes references to other textbooks
> throughout the text, at the back of the book, is a bibliography, pointing to
> each of the books referenced. So, you collect ALL the books together, and
> when a reference comes up, you put down the book you're reading, read the
> passage in the other book that's been referenced, and then return to the
> original book...

And let's assume, the result, as a whole, is one coherent poem.  Your
claim then is, if the thing _is_ published as a poem, and sold as a
poem, that this particular book, which can't be used consistently
without the referenced parts (which are poetic lines in itself), does
not need any particular permissions from the author of the included
parts when the whole is being broadcast _if_ the author has agreed to
_any_ broadcasting.

> THAT is the author/book/reader equivalent of dynamic linking.

The equivalent is reached _then_ when the resulting work makes no sense
except when including the referenced parts.

>> And on a demand-paged operating system (like pretty much every system
>> nowadays), executables are loaded into the physical address space
>> piecemeal and on-demand.  Whether or not you have used static or
>> dynamic linking.
>
> Irrelevant to the argument of copyright.

As is the static/dynamic difference.

>> Copying, not linking.  Linking is not just copying.
>  
> No copying need be involved in linking.

At one point of time you need to decide what you want to be arguing and
citing.

> Therefore copyright is irrelevant in dynamic llnking. 
> Only static linking falls under copyright law.

ld.so and ld are doing pretty much the same job.

-- 
David Kastrup