On 2/4/2010 5:25 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
The executable contains the same work/expression (which is the only subject of copyright) as aggregation of corresponding components in the source code form such as an aggregate tar file of sources or somesuch.
True, for the meaning of "same work" as defined by copyright law, which considers the source and binary to be the same work for purposes of registration.
Your 'idea' that (static) linkers/binders modify works/expression is pathetic
It is nevertheless the case that linkers produce modified versions of the components they link, for the normal English usage of the word "modified". In order to copy and distribute a collective work, you must have permission from the rights holders of the components. You must have this permission regardless of whether the components are present in a form that would be considered a verbatim copy, or a partial copy, or a transformed copy. In the case of the GPL, permission is granted differently based on the form of the components in the collective work. You may choose to believe that something that anyone with a normal reading knowledge of English would consider modified is actually verbatim, but other not-you people would be very foolish to act on such a misreading. You seem to be under the severe misapprehension that because two versions of a work are the same for purposes of copyright registration, permission granted for one form applies to the other. This is patently false. The usual example I post each time you make this fundamental error is publication rights for hardcover and paperback versions of a book. They are both the same work for copyright purposes, but the rights to each form of publication are generally sold separately, and having permission to copy and distribute one form does not imply permission to copy and distribute the other. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
