[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GPL traitor !
From: |
Rjack |
Subject: |
Re: GPL traitor ! |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:29:02 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
Hyman Rosen wrote:
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
In the GPL context, 17 USC 117 covers not only dynamic linking
but also static linking. I'm talking about distribution of "exact
copies [that is, exact copies of the GPL'd stuff statically
linked] prepared in accordance with the provisions of this
section..."
See 17 USC 117 and CONTU.
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
There is no difference between static and dynamic linking.
No, this is false. A statically linked program is a collective work
containing separately copyrighted elements. Permission to include
an element in a collective work is separate from any other
permission one has to use that work:
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000201----000-.html>
§ 201. Ownership of copyright ... (c) Contributions to Collective
Works. — 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.
In order to copy and distribute a statically linked program which
contains GPLed elements, separate permission is needed for those
elements apart from any other permission one might have already.
The GPL grants this permission only when the work as a whole is
distributed under the GPL.
GPL sec. 2 reads:
"2. You may *modify* your copy or copies of the Program or any
portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:"
By statutory definition, a compilation does *not* modify a preexisting
work, hence sec. 2 never applies to compilations. So... what section
of the GPL applies to compilations consisting of the preexisting
"separately copyrighted" elements?
Sincerely,
Rjack
- Re: GPL traitor !, (continued)
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Alexander Terekhov, 2009/06/18
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/18
- Re: GPL traitor !,
Rjack <=
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Peter Köhlmann, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/17
- Re: GPL traitor !, Rjack, 2009/06/18
- Re: GPL traitor !, Hyman Rosen, 2009/06/18