On 5/12/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/12/05, Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyway, I was not talking about distributing the "working" hello_world > > (if you are referring to the working set of it in RAM, after loaded -- > > after all, this is the only thing that "performs" when a file is dynalinked) > > Note also that all of the early precedents in the US with respect to > run-time copyright infringement, unauthorized computer maintenance, > etc. have been supplanted by 17 USC 117. Run-time copies are > unreachable by copyright infringement claims in the US.
And, I might add, this is another respect in which the FSF FAQ verges upon the dishonest. Since 17 USC 117 explicitly limits the scope of what can be considered infringement under section 106, it also nullifies any claims of contributory infringement when a distributor arranges for things to be combined at run-time. And that's a genuine respect in which it is safer to link dynamically. Even if a crack-smoking court ignores all precedent by proceeding directly to copyright law AND construes "work based on the Program" to include collective works (no, Raul, that would not be an automatic consequence of the former), you've got an unassailable defense under 17 USC 117. Unless, of course, the program you wrote, whose source code you are withholding (or offering under some license other than the GPL), really is a derivative work! Cheers, - Michael
