[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I know. And it's that last sentence -- that you don't have all the > rights to the combined work, that ticks me off. It means I have to > GNU the original part as well as the GNU part as long as the two > form one big program. And that I fail to understand! Why does it > have to be made that way? What is the problem with, say, just > releasing the GNU parts (like the single function example above?)? > Why couldn't the license be written to have to that way? Why must > the rest of the program go GNU along with it? If you can just > provide a simple, concise answer as to why the license requires that > the _rest of the program_, which would _not ordinarily be GNU_ has > to go GNU? That's all I need. Then I can argue that if I disagree > with it.
You have been answered this about half a dozen times by different people and given links to documents about it. Also several people have told you to stop confusing "GNU" and "GPL". I don't see that repeating those answers will add anything worthwhile. Unless you show some attempt of at least reading the answers given, I won't continue to bother. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss