On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done > > -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the > > licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or she so requests.
"it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and hence of 'work based on the Program'" > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being > construed here: > > If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't > granted license for that case. You are so utterly and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and the implication of "construed narrowly" in this context, as to entirely lose my respect. > [Clearly, the question of whether or not license is needed is > a separate question.] Blenderized equine. Don't let him go on bullshitting you, guys. - Michael