Re: Combining proprietary code and GPL for in-house use

[John Galt <galt@inconnu.isu.edu>]

On 27 Jun 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

>Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org> writes:
>
>> (1) The idea that compiling and linking a program is not restricted by
>> copyright; you don't need special permission to compile and link a
>> program once you have obtained a copy of it.
>
>But this is a confusion.  In one sense it's true, but in another sense
>it's false.
>
>One might also say that compiling and linking a program is not
>restricted by the murder statute.  But it might well be that those are
>steps in causing some machine to kill a person, and in that case,
>compiling and linking would be a murderous act.

One might, and one might be right.  Remember, the US legal system is
based in the Social Contract theory, where the Government is given powers
by the people, not vice-versa.  This means that if there isn't a law
specifically granting the Government power, it has none.

>In the instant case, compiling and linking is not specifically
>prohibited by the copyright statute, but that doesn't mean that you
>can ignore the fact that they are going on.  They might well be part
>of a larger more complicated activity, which *is* an act of illegal
>copying.

Actually, you can.  So long as the final result stays in the possession of
the person who did the linking, this is not a COPYright issue, but a
property right issue.  This is the epitome of fair use.  If fair use is
out, then the whole constitutional basis for copyright is suspect, because
of the "promote the arts and sciences" clause just before the grant of
monopoly (ie copyright).

>Thomas
>
>
>

-- 
There is an old saying that if a million monkeys typed on a million
keyboards for a million years, eventually all the works of Shakespeare
would be produced.   Now, thanks to Usenet, we know this is not true.

Who is John Galt?  galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!