Rjack wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> The inserted GPL library code is verbatim and unmodified.
>>
>> Untrue - static linking makes changes to the inserted library
>> code as addresses are resolved. But that's probably not relevant.
>>
>>> The whole compilation is in no way "based" on unmodified GPL'd
>> > library code.
>>
>> False. The GPL itself defines what it means by "based", and that
>> definition states that it describes a work other than a verbatim
>> copy whose production requires copyright permission.
>
> Uh... you can't define your own copyright law and expect a federal
> court to enforce your new definition. Read 17 USC sec. 301.
>
You naturally can. If the licence gives rights in *addition* to copyright,
which is the case with GPL, you certainly can. And it is enforceable.
You just can not create a licence which takes away rights granted by pure
copyright and expect that to be enforceable
But then, you are Rjack. Reason has never come anywhere near you
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
