Re: Wallace's reply brief

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup writes:
> >> Well, the theory is that once you touch GPLed work, it jumps up and
> >> magically gobbles up all of your portfolio.
> >
> > That describes SCO's interpretation of the SysV source licence.
> 
> Well, it is hard to say just _what_ is supposed to have this effect.

Oh dear GNUtian dak, hint:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd1to2-markup-rationale.pdf

------
We replace the definition of “modification” with a definition of 
“modified” (work), which we then use as the basis for our new generalized 
definition of “based on.” This in turn provides us with an alternative to 
the definitions in GPLv2 and Draft1 that incorporated the United States 
copyright law term “derivative work.” See Opinion on Denationalization of 
Terminology. We regard the well-established term “extension” (of a 
program), used in the now-replaced definition of “modification,” to be 
equivalent to adding material to the program.
------

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
(SCO Owns Your Computer ... All Your Base Are Belong To Us)

<quote>

GPL

"GPL has the same derivative rights concept [as UNIX]," according to
Sontag...

</quote>

So it's just that "all your base are belong to" GNU. And SCO.

Oh, BTW:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl3-dd2-guide.html

Still says

"We also will be releasing several opinions on particular issues, no 
later than 1 August. Several of the notes in the Rationale Document 
refer to these opinions."

How long is "1 August" in the GNU Republic?

Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

regards,
alexander.