From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932640AbWLSBkW (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:40:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932642AbWLSBkW (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:40:22 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3686 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932640AbWLSBkV (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:40:21 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPL only modules Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:39:19 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <17799.10706.834077.676728@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:42:27 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:42:28 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. DS