Re: GPL 2(b) HUH?

[Hyman Rosen]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> Causing the linked library to be copied into memory is governed by
> copyright law. Unless you can find an excpption (such as fair use or
> implied license), causing such copying would infringe any copyright on
> the library.

Well, here's the statute:
<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html>
    § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
    (a)  Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
    infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
    or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that
    computer program provided:
    (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential
    step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with
    a machine and that it is used in no other manner

So that's OK.

> You can't argue implied license if the library's license is overtly
> violated. You can't argue fair use if the library author's goals (as
> described in the GPL and its preamble) are cleverly and deliberately
> being undermined.

I'm not arguing either of those things. I'm saying simply that a
program dynamically linked to a library does not require permission
of any sort from the copyright holders of the library. The license
terms of the library are completely irrelevant to the program.