Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Unruh wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >Unruh wrote: >> >[...] >> >> Yes, and you have made the comparison? >> >> >Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing >> >under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome. >> >> ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright >> protected material contained withing the package. >No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW, ??? Is there some gramatical problem with that sentence. >RMS' own typical "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire >[blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved" covers >compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary) >idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish "mere >aggregation" vs GNUish "derived" ("derived" falls under the GPL... or >else... GNUish "mere aggregation" of GNUish "derived" stuff with >something else aside for a moment). Your passions are overriding your English. >> Have you made the >> comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC? >Because *you* have to make a (an initial) "comparixon", not me. Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright code could be in the Nokia software. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss