Re: Re (2): testing before a release

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 12:02:05PM -0500, Etienne M. Gagnon wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
> 
> >You always have that freedom since the GPL explicitly says:
> >"The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
> >Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
> >Program".
> 
> Your reasoning is wrong here.  You can confirm this with RMS (I did).  When 
> you launch:
> 
> kaffe org.apache.someprogram.Main
> 
> This causes the linking of "org.apache.someprogram.Main" with 
> "java.lang.Object" .  "Linking" is a modification of the code, and is thus 
> subject to the terms of the GPL.
> 
> In other words: think of "kaffe" as if it was "ld".  Then you will 
> understand that typing "ld kaffe org.apache.someprogram.Main 
> java.lang.Object" breaks the GPL rules.
> 
> In conclusion =>
> typing the command kaffe org.apache.someprogram.Main
> is not allowed :-(

Hmmmm. So if I accept that linking is modification. And if I accept that
(private) modifications are subject to copyright law (which I think they
are not). Then I have to agree to the GPL for doing that. But the GPL has
restrictions for modifications combined with copying or distribution. Since
I am not copying (except maybe for the copy from hard disk to main memory
for the purpose of running the program, but that was allowed by clause 0)
or distributing the (modified) work I don't see what part of the GPL
I am breaking even if I thought that I had to accept the GPL.

So which part of my reasoning is wrong?
- I do not have to accept the GPL for (private) modifications since copyright
  law only covers copying and distribution.
  (might be different in some jurisdictions)
- Even if I accept the GPL then I can still make (private) modifications
  since the GPL gives me explicit permission to run the program without
  restrictions.

May/Should I forward this discussion to RMS?

Thanks,

Mark
-- 
Stuff to read:
    <http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
  What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore