Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

> > > > However, from context, it looks as if you mean "binary" to mean "file"
> > > > and not "program".
> 
> > > Excactly.

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>:
> > The GPL doesn't require that you distribute all of the executable files
> > for a program.  However, it does require that you distribute (or make
> > arrangements to distribute) all the sources for the program,

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 04:40:28PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> No. GPL.3 does not speak about "programs" at all.

Here's proof to the contrary:

<quote>
  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form...
</quote>

> > There would be little point to using the GPL if someone could just
> > dynamically link it to a proprietary library which was available, free
> > of charge, in source form, to anyone -- with the slight caveat that
> > anyone who distributed modifications to that proprietary library must
> > contribute everything owned by any author of the program to Bill Gates.
> 
> Perhaps. But I don't think the author of a program has the legal power
> to prevent that.

I think you should back up this kind of claim with a reference to the
relevant copyright law or legal precedents.

[It's fairly clear that the GPL says that this kind of practice is
forbidden, but this claim of yours is independent of the GPL.]

-- 
Raul