Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html 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.
And there's no problem with that:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> A compilation of a covered
work with other separate and independent works, which are not by
their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not
combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume
of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the
compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the
access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the
individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate
does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the
aggregate.
As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the
the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a
distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a
unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't
going to have such trouble.
As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain
consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec.
301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of
copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is
delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible
thing to waste.
Sincerely,
RJack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss