In article <[email protected]>, Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> 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. If you believe that you may distribute something in case it was dynamically linked, you may do so as well for the staically linked case. If you do not treat static linking the same as you treat dynamic linking, you would get into trouble on Linux as on Linux even a dynamically linked binary contains parts from glibc. The idea that there is a difference comes from the incorrect assumption that you need to put a binary compiled from GPL sources under GPL too. You simply cannot and it is sufficient to follow GPL section 3. -- EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [email protected] (uni) [email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
