In article <slrnh0rlc5.o0n.j...@nomad.mishnet>, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote: >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. >
Well, "legally" (but no lawyer me!) one could maybe infer a difference in INTENT? David _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
