On 2009-05-15, Joerg Schilling <j...@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> In article <gzwol.22205$hx2.11...@newsfe19.iad>,
> Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
>>Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> The law makes it clear that the GPL cant affect the licenses to
>> > those preexisting component parts. Again, linking doesnt matter.
>>
>>This is false, for static linking. The exclusive right to authorize
>>the copying of of a component into a linked program rests with the
>>copyright holder. Therefore, to copy and distribute such a linked
>>work requires permission from the copyright holder of each component,
>>and the GPL requires that the work as a whole be distributed under
>>the GPL.
>
> This is nonsense - sorry.
>
> There is no difference between static and dynamic linking.
How can you possibly, honestly, as someone that's supposed to actually
have a clue, actually say this when you obviou sly know (assuming that
you aren't just an imposter) that there are very real practical end user
difference between dynamic and static linking?
[deletia]
Go torment someone that forked your work or something...
--
On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...
When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
arbitrarily assigned.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
