[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: GPL only modules

    Combined responses:

    > So therefore I don't think you can reasonably claim that static
    > vs. dynamic linking is only a technical difference. There are clearly
    > other differences when it comes to distribution of the resulting
    > binaries.

    We're only talking about the special case of GPL'd works. You can download a
    million copies of a GPL'd work from a server run by a family member across
    the room. You can then delete one copy for each copy you distribute in the
    form of a statically linked work.

    Issues of copying don't apply to GPL'd works unless you have no access to
    the source code. Otherwise, someone else can copy you as many works as you
    want with the source code, and you can use first sale to transfer every one
    of them.

    > I personally would think that a mechanical process of modification
    > *does* create a derived work, but it would take a court of law or a
    > legislature to make an authoritative decision, I guess.

    Under at least United States law, copyright protected creative expression
    and only creative expression. In other jurisdictions, there are other types
    of rights similar to copyright that one can obtain by means of hard work,
    for example database compilation rights. They are usually legally distinct
    from copyright and grant different rights with different rules.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-12-19 02:43    [W:0.022 / U:64.100 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site