Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

Rjack wrote:
> > False. The GPL itself defines what it means by "based", and that
> > definition states that it describes a work other than a verbatim
> > copy whose production requires copyright permission. 
>
> Uh... you can't define your own copyright law and expect a federal court 
> to enforce your new definition. Read 17 USC sec. 301.

I see you're back to your usual preemption idiocy. Preemption
is irrelevant to this discussion since we are talking about the
federal statutes governing copyright.

No one is defining a new copyright law. The GPL is defining the
word "based" for use within itself. The collective work formed
by creating a statically linked executable using separate elements
requires permission from the copyright holders of those elements
to be copied and distributed, under the copyright laws of the US.
Read 17 USC sec. 201.