Re: GPL traitor !

[Rjack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Rjack wrote:
> > > False. The GPL itself defines what it means by "based", and 
> > > that definition states that it describes a work other than a 
> > > verbatim copy whose production requires copyright permission.
> >
> > Uh... you can't define your own copyright law and expect a 
> > federal court to enforce your new definition. Read 17 USC sec. 
> > 301.
>
> I see you're back to your usual preemption idiocy.

The revulsion you demonstrate for 17 USC 301 clearly foretells its
potential to destroy your dreams of creating new copyrights
through contractual fiat. Cavalierly dismissing it as "idiocy" won't
make it go away though.

> Preemption is irrelevant to this discussion since we are talking 
> about the federal statutes governing copyright.
>
> No one is defining a new copyright law. The GPL is defining the 
> word "based" for use within itself. The collective work formed by 
> creating a statically linked executable using separate elements 
> requires permission from the copyright holders of those elements to
>  be copied and distributed, under the copyright laws of the US.
> Read 17 USC sec. 201.

Sincerely,
Rjack