Forgot one bit. Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > 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.
Snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary works modulo the AFC test): "A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if <snip nonsense>. When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document. " IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2, stupid. > > > > 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. > > Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective > works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified > program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL > and/or copyright law? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
