Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/4/2010 5:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The executable contains the same work/expression (which is the only
> subject of copyright) as aggregation of corresponding components in the
> source code form such as an aggregate tar file of sources or somesuch.

True, for the meaning of "same work" as defined by
copyright law, which considers the source and binary
to be the same work for purposes of registration.

> Your 'idea' that (static) linkers/binders modify works/expression is
> pathetic

It is nevertheless the case that linkers produce modified
versions of the components they link, for the normal English
usage of the word "modified".

In order to copy and distribute a collective work, you must
have permission from the rights holders of the components.
You must have this permission regardless of whether the
components are present in a form that would be considered a
verbatim copy, or a partial copy, or a transformed copy.

In the case of the GPL, permission is granted differently
based on the form of the components in the collective work.
You may choose to believe that something that anyone with
a normal reading knowledge of English would consider modified
is actually verbatim, but other not-you people would be very
foolish to act on such a misreading.

You seem to be under the severe misapprehension that because
two versions of a work are the same for purposes of copyright
registration, permission granted for one form applies to the
other. This is patently false. The usual example I post each
time you make this fundamental error is publication rights for
hardcover and paperback versions of a book. They are both the
same work for copyright purposes, but the rights to each form
of publication are generally sold separately, and having
permission to copy and distribute one form does not imply
permission to copy and distribute the other.