Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: > mike4ty4 writes: > > If you then use some of your original code from said combined work (and > > it's been said here REPEATEDLY that your original code is yours) in > > another 100% original work, that also becomes GPL... > > It does no such thing. Please read up on Troll Tec

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > Can I make a combined work, put that out under GPL (following the > license), then take a piece of [my] _original code_ and put it in a > non-GPL work and keep that non-GPL? Yes, of course you can. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > It requires that if, after doing that, you take some code from your > original portions of that combined work and use them in other original > works those ALSO have to become GPL as well... This is not true. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA _

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > So then you are saying I _can't_ then use the stuff in the _original > parts_ of said combined work in other projects without making those GPL > as well, after releasing the combined work? No. Distributing your work under the GPL, whether combined with someone else's work or no

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Perhaps, if I was planning a commercial project. Of course if I was >making a program that I had no profit plans for whatsoever, >nothing, I wouldn't mind GPLing it. > > The GNU GPL doesn't prohibit commerical explotation of software; > infact if a license does no

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Nonsense. He can be _held_ to the terms of the license if he does >so. You would not need to sue for compliance if acceptance >happened automatically. > > Section 5: > > | Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any > | work based on th

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > >Perhaps, if I was planning a commercial project. Of course if >>I was making a program that I had no profit plans for >>whatsoever, nothing, I wouldn't mind GPLing it. >> >> The GNU GPL doesn't prohibit commerical explotation of software; >

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project. The person who >> included code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should >> say that he spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have >> a soul, mind or can somehow act without a human. > >

NYC LOCAL: Wednesday 6 September 2006 NYCBUG: Isaac `Ike` Levy on m0n0wall and PFSense

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 17:57:05 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: NYC*BUG Announcement <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [announce] NYC*BUG Wed Sept 6th Isaac `Ike` Levy on m0n0wall and PFSense Back to the Soho Apple Store! 6:30 pm, Soho Apple Store at 103 Prince Street UNIX professionals

Re: GNU licenses

> "the Web" consists of a lot of different protocols, and most people don't > have dedicated lines for private exchanges. The only protocols used on the Web, so far as I am aware, are HTTP and HTTPS. And if it isn't public it isn't part of the Web. > So please give an example for some software w

Re: GNU licenses

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So then I guess I _can_ do the following? Yay!: > > 1. Make non-GPL program. > > 2. Combine a little bit of someone else's GPL program. > > 3. Release the _combined work_ under GPL. > > 4. Take a bit of my _original work_ from the *original* > part of said combined work

Re: GNU licenses

On 5 Sep 2006 12:33:24 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > Well I could, and it depends on the type of project I have planned. If > the project is not a commercial venture in any form, I have NO > PROBLEMS with GPLing it, provided I am not going to reuse some of the > orig

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > You can't distribute the original program w/o the GPLed code vs the > combined program w/the GPLed code together _in any way_ singificantly > different from GPL... The fact that you have distributed copies of your code under the GPL does not prevent you from distributing subsequ

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > If you then use some of your original code from said combined work (and > it's been said here REPEATEDLY that your original code is yours) in > another 100% original work, that also becomes GPL... It does no such thing. Please read up on Troll Tech and Qt. > 1. Make non-GPL pr

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > ...why it demands the original code become [GPL] ***and be USELESS for > non-[GPL] projects without making them [GPL]***. It doesn't. > The distribution of said combined work [under the GPL] should have NO > BEARING on ANY other works that have NO 3rd-party code in them but ar

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > In other words, give up some of the rights to that original code, namely > the ability to create non-GPL works from parts of it (if I go and > distribute the combined work). Right? Wrong. The fact that you have distributed copies of a work in which you are the sole copyright ow

Re: GNU licenses

> The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project. The person who > included code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should > say that he spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have > a soul, mind or can somehow act without a human. So I'm right. Using the GPL code

Re: GNU licenses

>Perhaps, if I was planning a commercial project. Of course if >I was making a program that I had no profit plans for >whatsoever, nothing, I wouldn't mind GPLing it. > > The GNU GPL doesn't prohibit commerical explotation of software; > infact if a license does not al

Re: GNU licenses

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >but I don't understand the rationale >for MAKING THE LICENSE THAT WAY, why it demands the original >code become GNU ***and be USELESS for non-GNU projects without >making them GNU***. It's that last part in asterisks that I hate. The >dis

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project. The person who included > code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should say that he > spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have a soul, mind or > can somehow act without a human. So I'm right. Using the

Re: GNU licenses

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > Perhaps, if I was planning a commercial project. Of course if I was >making a program that I had no profit plans for whatsoever, >nothing, I wouldn't mind GPLing it. > > The GNU GPL doesn't prohibit commerical explotation of software; > infact if a license does no

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 15:06:28 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >It does *not* logically follow that I therefore am licensed by >doing the act. You are assuming that it's impossible to do things >that are illegal (forbidden). > > No, I'm assuming (well, not real

Re: GNU licenses

Perhaps, if I was planning a commercial project. Of course if I was making a program that I had no profit plans for whatsoever, nothing, I wouldn't mind GPLing it. The GNU GPL doesn't prohibit commerical explotation of software; infact if a license does not allows such explotation it is c

Re: GNU licenses

The GPL didn't infect, nor spoil the project. The person who included code did (actually, he made a good thing, so one should say that he spoiled it or infected it). The GNU GPL does not have a soul, mind or can somehow act without a human. ___ gnu-mis

Re: GNU licenses

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > On 5 Sep 2006 00:24:19 -0700 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > David Kastrup wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > If your code was working before including GPLed code, the old code > > > will still continue to work. So the amount of non-GPLed code

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: > mike4ty4 writes: > > You may use the GPLed code in your programs if you agree to make the > > entire original program GPL as well (ie. "pay for the code" with your > > original creation), no matter how small the code fragment you use is (at > > least to the minimum amount that

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: There are a number of organisations that host Open Source Projects for free: BerliOS OpenSVN GNA.org safehaus codehaus GNU savannah java.net javaforge Novell They have various services, suc

Re: GNU licenses

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] > Dr eeckels. Dr. Dreckels. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > John Hasler wrote: > > [...] > >> you see fit. It is only the work consisting of a combination of > >> your work and a GPL work that may only be distributed under the > >> GPL. > > > > Sez who? See "mere aggregation"

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: > > Merijn writes: > > The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the GPL's > > case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant. > > IIRC IBM is counterclaiming against SCO for infringement, not breach of > contract. Uncle Hasler's RC-unit malfunc

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Hasler wrote: > [...] >> you see fit. It is only the work consisting of a combination of >> your work and a GPL work that may only be distributed under the >> GPL. > > Sez who? See "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL, retard. The problem wit

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:55:54 +0200 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And it is obvious that you are intelligent enough that you do this > sort of create disingenuous quoting out of context on purpose, too. > > What you hope to achieve by those tactics is beyond me. Never explain by mali

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:06:28 +0200 Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > > > > > On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > The GPL vision of

Re: GNU licenses

Merijn writes: > The payment is a *covenant*, a promise made by the licensee. In the GPL's > case, the requirement to provide source is the covenant. IIRC IBM is counterclaiming against SCO for infringement, not breach of contract. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: [...] > you see fit. It is only the work consisting of a combination of your work > and a GPL work that may only be distributed under the GPL. Sez who? See "mere aggregation" clause in the GPL, retard. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-mi

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: [...] > No. You must make the entire _derivative_ (that is, the work consisting of > the combination of your work and the GPL work) GPL. That's not a derivative work under copyright law according to statutory definitions (and case law), retarded uncle Hasler. regards, alexa

Re: GNU licenses

Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > Our resident quote-spewing troll does prove useful occasionally: he Hey only-derivative/not-only-derivative-(the GPL reciprocation scope)- shizophrenik, I appreciate the acknowledgment. > cited GRAHAM v JAMES which is exactly on point under New York law. > http://c

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > But of course if I decide to use the GNU code then I am agreeing to > surrender some of those rights, namely those withhold the source and/or > license it under a different set of terms than GPL. No. You retain all rights to your work and can release it under any terms you see

Re: GNU licenses

mike4ty4 writes: > You may use the GPLed code in your programs if you agree to make the > entire original program GPL as well (ie. "pay for the code" with your > original creation), no matter how small the code fragment you use is (at > least to the minimum amount that copyright can apply to of > c

Re: GNU licenses

I am performing an act which is illegal unless licensed. There exists a license that says "performance of the act indicates your acceptance of the license". It does *not* logically follow that I therefore am licensed by doing the act. You are assuming that it's impossible to do thi

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:17:13 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Your analogy is not valid. A license is not the law. It's an >agreement between parties: you allow me to do something, I will do >something in return. I am not bound by that until and unless I >

Re: GNU licenses

Please refrain from slander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU licenses

Merijn de Weerd wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you > >in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see > >you in state court where you

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >You snipped the context, namely that you are constantly and >purposely _confusing_ those two concept, which are _different_. > > Nothing of the context was snipped, I cut away pieces that are no > longer needed, Liar. > that you disagree wi

Re: GNU licenses

>If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See >you in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have >to see you in state court where you try to compel specific >performance of the license. > > What you are basically saying is: If I commit

Re: GNU licenses

You snipped the context, namely that you are constantly and purposely _confusing_ those two concept, which are _different_. Nothing of the context was snipped, I cut away pieces that are no longer needed, that you disagree with this is fine, no need to become aggressive as you always tend to

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:20:57 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >When we enter into a contract that says "you may copy, at cost of >$1 per copy", then we both have an obligation as a result. I have >to tolerate the copying, you have to pay $1 for every copy. > >

Re: GNU licenses

You continue to use slander, please stop it. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:15:35 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you >in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see >you in state court where you try to compel specific performance o

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > from a fellow GNU hacker. Nowadays, hacking is no different than unlawful cracking in the sense that it is a criminal offense and a really bad thing. That's what it means to most people outside the GNU Republic. regards, alexander. __

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I recommend you use Google Groups on Alfred Szmidt and GNU or GPL, >pick out a few "discussions", and then consider whether you think >yourself smarter than all the people that finally went into "is >too/is not" or stopped bothering c

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >a) Nobody is capable of committing anything which would by the legal >profession be classified as murder. >b) One cannot commit murder while staying within the bounds of acts >that are explicitly permitted by law. > > The same thing a

Re: GNU licenses

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If your code was working before including GPLed code, the old code >> will still continue to work. So the amount of non-GPLed code will not >> decrease. If your code was not working before including GPLed code, >> there is nothing th

Re: GNU licenses

I recommend you use Google Groups on Alfred Szmidt and GNU or GPL, pick out a few "discussions", and then consider whether you think yourself smarter than all the people that finally went into "is too/is not" or stopped bothering completely. I think you are perfectly well getting th

Re: GNU licenses

a) Nobody is capable of committing anything which would by the legal profession be classified as murder. b) One cannot commit murder while staying within the bounds of acts that are explicitly permitted by law. The same thing applies to copyright violations, which was kinda my point.

Re: GNU licenses

"Merijn de Weerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:54:46 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized act. The >>contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other >>party to

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Basically our discussion comes down to: >"You can't do that!" >"I just did!" > > You forgot: "See you in court.". > >This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically >able to distribute works without accepting t

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> >> Sure me any GPL'd work of Knuth. Did he finally copylefted TAOCP? > > Show, I mean. It's time to call you a retard, Eeckels. That's a fact. He walks along Fitzgibbon street with an independent air And then it's down

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > What you are basically saying is: If I commit murder, then I am not > bound by the law. Man oh man, you're krank. What he says is that it's not the copyright law that binds to the "conditions" of the GPL, it's a contract. And, BTW, unless you're James Bond, t

Re: GNU licenses

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot. Sure one can. Murder is both a legal and a moral term, that are not always coincident. It may be legal to kill, but still murder in the moral sense. In the legal sense, Murder is the crime of causing the de

Re: GNU licenses

Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > > > On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > > [...] > > > > The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced > > > > > > Rather funny practice in the context of the

Re: GNU licenses

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006 15:28:33 -0700 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > [...] > > > The GPL vision of software is more like how science is practiced > > > > Rather funny practice in the context of the GPL you're talking about. > > > > Most researc

Re: GNU licenses

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: [...] > The situation under copyright law is that you _can not_ use someone > else's work. Not true. > The various open source licenses give you the right to do > so while maintaining a number of conditions. Imagine that instead of > the GPL, the author had

Re: GNU licenses

Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically able > to distribute works without accepting their license. It is an > infringement of the applicable copyright, sure. Not necessarily. There is a whole bunch of exception to exclusive rights such

Re: GNU licenses

On 5 Sep 2006 00:24:19 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > David Kastrup wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > If your code was working before including GPLed code, the old code > > will still continue to work. So the amount of non-GPLed code will > > not decrease. If your code was no

Re: GNU licenses

>The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized >act. The contract establishes two acts: 1) One party >authorizes the other party to copy 2) The other party accepts >the obligation to pay for each copy > > Of course the "not paying $1 per copy" is part

Re: GNU licenses

> Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot. My point exactly. Glad we finally agree. We don't. If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you in federal court for copyright infringement. I won't have to see you in state court where you try to compel

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

Non-GNU savannah projects should be registered at http://savannah.nongnu.org And I think free software projects are also "open source" projects :) Just to add another one by FSF France, which supports Subversion (which the main Savannah site does not): http://gna.org ___

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:00:32 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Factually, one can commit murder. Legally one cannot. My point exactly. Glad we finally agree. If I distribute illegally, I am not bound by the license. See you in federal court for copyright infringemen

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:54:46 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >The "not paying $1 per copy" is not part of the authorized act. The >contract establishes two acts: 1) One party authorizes the other >party to copy 2) The other party accepts the obligation to pay

Re: GNU licenses

Basically our discussion comes down to: "You can't do that!" "I just did!" You forgot: "See you in court.". This is about *legally can* versus *factually can*. I am physically able to distribute works without accepting their license. It is an infringement of the applicable copyr

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >There are a number of organisations that host Open Source Projects for >free: > ... >GNU savannah > > Savannah does not host any open source project, it only hosts free > software projects. That's being dising

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > >I cannot maintain a server for this software pagage. So I would >prefer to upload it to an existing server which has already an >archive of free software. However I do not know where are such >servers and what exactly are the steps. > > I would recomm

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > >There are a number of organisations that host Open Source Projects for >free: > ... >GNU savannah > > Savannah does not host any open source project, it only hosts free > software projects. Noted true GNUtian ams. regards, al

Re: GNU licenses

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > That does NOT make sense, he seems to be implying that linking together > GNU libraries is forbidden! Even if everything used in the project is > all GNU and the end product is released as GNU! Is this right?! This is > awful. The fellow is currently so busy desig

Re: GNU licenses

John Hasler wrote: [...] > The GPL is very clear. Only to GNUtian retards like uncle Hasler. regards, alexander. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: GNU licenses

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > Am I right? Ever heard of Ray Nimmer? http://www.ipinfoblog.com/archives/Open%20Source%20Legal%20Issues.pdf LEGAL ISSUES IN OPEN SOURCE AND FREE SOFTWARE DISTRIBUTION1 RAYMOND T. NIMMER 1 This materials have been adapted from Chapter 11 in Raymond T. Nimmer, T

Re: GNU licenses

>Doing a licensed act but failing to comply with conditions is >*breach of contract* If I authorize you to copy in return for >payment of $1 per copy, and you don't pay, you are in breach >of the license. Yet I can only sue you for non-performance >and demand the

Re: GNU licenses

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 10:52:31 +0200 (CEST), "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Yes. Hence my conclusion that the statement in the GPL has no >value. Either I accept the GPL, in which case it's a truism (which >has no value), or I do not accept the GPL, in which case my >d

Re: GNU licenses

> So your legal position if you ignore whatever the GNU GPL states > is: copyright infrigment. Yes. Hence my conclusion that the statement in the GPL has no value. Either I accept the GPL, in which case it's a truism (which has no value), or I do not accept the GPL, in which case m

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

There are a number of organisations that host Open Source Projects for free: ... GNU savannah Savannah does not host any open source project, it only hosts free software projects. ___ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list g

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

I cannot maintain a server for this software pagage. So I would prefer to upload it to an existing server which has already an archive of free software. However I do not know where are such servers and what exactly are the steps. I would recommend Savannah. http://savannah.gnu.org/reg

Re: Donating Time Series Software to the Open Source

On Mon, 4 Sep 2006 19:39:46 +0300 "Johann Rost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I own a time series software package and I would like to donate the C+ > + code to the open source. (Time Series is an area of mathematical > statistics). I thought of using GPL as license - perhaps dual > licensing (some

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > >> > David Kastrup wrote: > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> >> > >> >> > Wei Mingzhi wrote: > >> >> >> If you don't allow me using your code, then I don't allow you > >> >> >> usi

Re: GNU licenses

David Kastrup wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > WOOHOO! I'm RIGHT! It *is* a "price", just not a monetary one. > > It can be a monetary one without problem. GPLed software may sold for > arbitrary amounts of money. The only condition is that whatever > amount of money gets asked, you get

Re: GNU licenses

[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