@@ -1504,7 +1504,7 @@ generally require permission from the copyright holder to grant explicit
permission to modify a work in any manner. As discussed in the next chapter,
the GPL {\em does} grant such permission, but requires the modified work must
also be licensed under the terms of the GPL (and only GPL:
see\S~\label{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was
see\S~\ref{GPLv2s6} in this tutorial). Determining whether software was
modified is a substantially easier analysis than the derivative work
discussions and considerations in this chapter.
@@ -1662,6 +1662,12 @@ of the GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to
say that this condition is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
The GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could be
combined, then the obligations of copyleft do not extend to the work
separately distributed. Thus, Far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond the
scope of copyright, the licenses explicitly recognize.
Thus, GPL recognizes what is outside its scope. When a programmer's work is
``separate and independent'' from any GPL'd program code with which it could
be combined, then copyleft obligations do not extend to the independent work
@@ -1669,15 +1675,6 @@ separately distributed. Thus, far from attempting to extend copyleft beyond
the scope of copyright, GPL explicitly limits the scope of copyleft to the
scope of copyright.
% Comment: The above is only true to the extent that the independent work is
% not also combined as part of a whole based on the GPL'd program, because in
% such case, the licensor needs to "extend" the GPL terms to the whole,
% including the independent work "regardless of who wrote it".
%
% I think the paragraph could thus benefit in clarity by not mentioning the
% "limits the scope of copyleft to the scope of copyright" here (but that may
% have to be with the fact I disagree with this statement in general 😉
GPL does not, however (as is sometimes suggested) distinguish ``dynamic''
from ``static'' linking of program code. It is occasionally suggested that a
subroutine ``dynamically'' linked to GPL'd code is, by virtue of the linking