Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Moglen: We have made one clarification, as we see it, of what we
> > believe was always the rule. We reasserted that code dynamically linked
> > to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require, not merely
> > optionally incorporate--is part of the source code of the work under
> > the GPL and must be released.
> >
> > </quote>
> >
> > So much about "the GPL rejects any automatic aggregation of software
> > copyrights" the FSF been telling to the Judge in court of law. To
> > quote day5done,
> 
> Linking is not aggregation.

Static linking certainly is. Dynamic linking is also aggregation -- 
at the stage when address space incorporates "that code dynamically 
linked to GPL code--which the GPL code is intended to require" which
Moglen wannas infect with the GPL.

Linking as such (apart from aggregation) is as relevant re copyright 
as placing references to one literary work in another literary work.

No relevance at all.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html

<quote>

consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other.
The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does
not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A
are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or
separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are
defined in 17 USC as literary works

</quote>

regards,
alexander.