Re: GPL traitor !

[Peter Köhlmann]

Rjack wrote:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> The inserted GPL library code is verbatim and unmodified.
>> 
>> Untrue - static linking makes changes to the inserted library
>> code as addresses are resolved. But that's probably not relevant.
>> 
>>> The whole compilation is in no way "based" on unmodified GPL'd
>>  > library code.
>> 
>> 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.
> 

You naturally can. If the licence gives rights in *addition* to copyright, 
which is the case with GPL, you certainly can. And it is enforceable.

You just can not create a licence which takes away rights granted by pure 
copyright and expect that to be enforceable

But then, you are Rjack. Reason has never come anywhere near you
-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
                -- Henry Spencer