On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:29:13PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they > would have to use terms of art instead of "derivative or collective > works", and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to > create an action for breach of contract when GPL and non-GPL works are > combined.
I think we might disagree about which cases the FSF is shooting for. That they've provided a FAQ which states things a certain way probably has more to do with the questions they've been asked than it does the design intent of the GPL. -- Raul
