> Assume that someone statically links > object modules compiled from G and object modules compiled > from H into a single executable file (call this executable file G+H). > > I believe that there is wide agreement that the GPL is > interpreted such that the author of G has not given > permission for distribution of that single executable file. > (I also believe there is less widespread agreement on the > alternative where the linking occurs at runtime.)
I don't know that there is widespread agreement to either of those propositions. Indeed, isn't that really what we've all been discussing? [I must admit, I once publicly argued the point your way, but I have since recanted because I couldn't find any statutory or case law support for my earlier position.] > H is not a derivative work of G. So, how does one get to this > widely agreed result? I believe that that interpretation > assumes that G+H is a "work based on the Program". So, it > looks to me like it is generally agreed that the GPL does > indeed concern itself with whether G and H are parts of > something larger (not necessarily every larger thing, but at > least some sorts of larger things). Thus, it seems that > stopping analysis at the point of determining that H is not a > derivative of G is failing to complete the analysis needed to > judge compliance with the GPL. I am still not certain what is meant by the phrase "work based on the Program." Under your scenario, G and H are entirely independent creations. If G+H requires merely the making of copies of G and H, an act permitted without restriction by the GPL, then why is it a derivative work? Why is that a work based on the Program? /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3