Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > > Hint: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a
> > > whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
> > > the whole must be on the terms of this License".
> > 
> > You are making a spectacle of yourself.  No court will answer to
> > "hints",
> 
> I've quoted the GPL, genious.

And if you quote something irrelevant as a hint to court, your
"genious" won't get you far.

> Here's one more quote (also from the GPL):
> 
> "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
>  contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
>  intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
>  derivative or collective works based on the Program."
> 
> Note the use of the phrase 'derivative OR COLLECTIVE works'
> (although it's hard to see what does "collective works" term have to
> do with a permission to "modify your copy or copies of the Program
> or any portion of it";

What about "distribution" don't you understand?

> it would seem that it would be more relevant in the context of
> Section 1 and Section 3, not Section 2 [first sale aside for a
> moment ;-) ]). Now, Red Hat sort of concedes that their distro is a
> "collective work"... See the light now?

No, since you can redistribute the collection as a whole if you want
to.  Even if you couldn't, the GPLed part are contained as separable,
independent items with their own original source code, distributed
under the GPL.

I am afraid that listening to the advice of some "genious" that is
completely unable to come up with coherent reasoning because he finds
it funnier to quote irrelevant stuff and bask in his mental
superiority is not going to buy anybody points with the court.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum