Re: license issue: calling a GPLv2 library

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
>> 
>>    Sez who?
>> 
>> The definition of independant.
>
> Uh. Listen, brainwashed fanatic. A computer program work is a literary 
> work with expression being a set of statements or instructions to be 
> used directly or indirectly in a computer. Doctrine of independent 
> creation aside for a moment, that set of statements or instructions is 
> said to be under "independent" copyright if the AFC test shows that it 
> doesn't contain any protected elements copied from other work(s). 
> References to other computer program works are not protected elements. 
> Stop trying to expand the scope of rights under the GPL to infect 
> works under independent copyright (in this case, Gottfried's program). 
> This is copyright misuse. The penalty for copyright misuse is 
> copyright impotence (it gives impunity to real infringes in court of 
> law).

There is no expansion of rights.

      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have
    not signed it.

Clear?  Accepting the license is _optional_.  So there is no expansion
of copyright.  You have all the rights given to you by law, _plus_
additional ones.

    However, nothing else grants you permission to
    modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These
    actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
    Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work
    based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this
    License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying,
    distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum