Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned, > > compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit. > > Got it now? > > There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns > the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy > and distribute the arrangement with the works included without > permission of the owners of the rights in the included works.
Go tell Red Hat and Novell that they are blatantly violating the GPL, silly Hyman. Yeah, I know that you're "insufficiently motivated"... right? http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is a collective work of Novell" Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL. regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
