Re: GPL traitor !

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen wrote: [... 17 USC 201(c) ...] That section of the 
> > copyright act is utterly irrelevant in the GPL context, silly. 
> > http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/62357178_2.html
>
> The article you quoted is utterly irrelevant in the GPL context, 
> while 17 USC 201 is completely relevant. 
> <http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/201.html> Copyright in each 
> separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from 
> copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in
>  the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express 
> transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of 
> copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only 
> the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as 
> part of that particular collective work, any revision of that 
> collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.
>
> It could not be clearer from this law that the preparer of a 
> collective work must have permission from the copyright holders of 
> the work's elements to include them, and that such permission must 
> be acquired separately for each collective work.

Your are right as rain!! Read GPL sec. 1 regarding the unmodified
verbatim library segments that are copied into the collective work!!
GPL sec. 1 does *not* involve licensing of non GPL code.

> Since this is the fortunate condition met by a statically linked 
> work which has GPLed components, the GPL works exactly as intended 
> by its creators in this case.

Right again!! From the GPL:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to
those sections when you distribute them as separate works."

Sincerely,
Rjack