Re: GPL traitor !

[Hyman Rosen]

David Kastrup wrote:
> And let's assume, the result, as a whole, is one coherent poem.

The book may be sold without requiring the permission of
the rights holders of the works included by reference.

The actual reading aloud of such a work is a separate matter,
because copyright law has requirements on public performances.
That's not relevant to copyright on computer programs.

> The equivalent is reached _then_ when the resulting work makes no
> sense except when including the referenced parts.

You are once again putting things into copyright law which
it does not contain. A copyrightable work does not need to
"make sense" in the way you appear to think. US law says
    
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html>
    § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
    (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with
    this title, in original works of authorship fixed in
    any tangible medium of expression, now known or later
    developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced,
    or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the
    aid of a machine or device.

All that's required for a work to be copyrightable is for it
to be an original work of authorship (that is, something
created with intention by persons) fixed in a medium. "Sense"
is not a requirement.

> > Therefore copyright is irrelevant in dynamic llnking. 
> > Only static linking falls under copyright law.
>
> ld.so and ld are doing pretty much the same job.

But they do it in different places, and that makes all the
difference.