Re: GPL Software Gold Standard

[Martin Dickopp]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> [...]
>> http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/20/1544245
>
> <quote>
>
> The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the 
> rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been 
> modified. The situation is no different than the one where your 
> code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, 
> say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined 
> with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL 
> section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and 
> only the GPL
>
> </quote>
>
> Such claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and 
> the doctrine of first sale. Neither static nor dynamic linking 
> constitute creation of a derivative work. Copyright protects 
> software as literacy works. "In order to operate" is completely 
> irrelevant. Copyright law doesn't establish exclusive right to 
> "combine" works. FSF's theory of derivative works is total crap.

http://www.zero-based.org/usenet/gnu.misc.discuss-20040512001.txt

Martin