[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Software License idea: "The Freedom License."

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: New Software License idea: "The Freedom License."
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 22:26:43 +0000
User-agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.35 (i686))

Alexander Terekhov <> wrote on Tue, 23 May 2006 22:53:49 +0200:

> Joerg Schilling wrote:

>> In article <sblv4e.lb1.ln@acm.acm>, Alan Mackenzie  <> wrote:
>> >Karen Hill <> wrote on 22 May 2006 16:49:50 -0700:

>> >What is wrong with this?  Commands like make have evolved considerably
>> >since 1972.  However, inside the GNU make info page you can read this:
>> >
>> >       GNU `make' conforms to section 6.2 of `IEEE Standard 1003.2-1992'
>> >    (POSIX.2).

>> Do you believe all false claims?

> Alan believes that taking two separate and independent computer program
> works (separate and independent under copyright law, according to the
> AFC test) and combining them together in a compilation (see 17 USC 101)
> creates a "derived work" (see the GNU Copyleft Act) akin to "embryo
> which is derived from the egg and sperm." I gather that he also
> believes that linking is akin to sex without condoms (and that it is
> not oral or anal).

HaHaHaHa!  Is this really the best you can manage, Alex?

(Clue to those who aren't yet familiar with Alexander Terekhov:  He
believes that combining two pieces of source code always produces a
"compilation" and never a "derived work", regardless of how the combining
is done.) 

> regards,
> alexander.

And the happiest of evenings to you too, sir!

Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]