Hyman Rosen wrote: [...] > Linking, either dynamically or statically, does not > constitute a significant auctorial transformation of > an existing work, and therefore the person performing > the link step does not gain copyright to a derivative > work, since no such work is created.
Wow. Correct. > > A statically linked program is a combined work, physically > containing multiple components as an anthology contains a > multitude of stories, and to copy and distribute such a work > requires permission from the copyright holders of the > components. That permission is the non-derivative work copyright permission (Section 1 and 3 in the GPLv2). And 'mere aggregation' clause in Section 2 just makes it abundantly clear that components of the collective work don't fall under the GPL. See for example http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " note that Red Hat's collective work contains tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL. regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
