Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
>> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
>> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
>> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
 
>> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
>> phrase: "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>> a storage or distribution medium".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
>> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.

> You're mistaken.

> This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

> Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

> What say you now, Alan?

I've had a look at the "Copyright law and Linking" section in that pdf.
The guy conflates two very different things which are called "linking":
Firstly, putting a hyperlink into a web page, secondly joining object
code files together to create an executable or larger object file.

So either he doesn't understand what linking means (he's an idiot) or
he's trying to confuse his readers (he's a knave) or he's trying to show
off how clever he is by noticing something in common between "linking"
and "linking" which nobody else thought of before (he's a smart alex).

I suspect the first of these.  Whichever it is, it thoroughly discredits
him, and it thus seems a waste of time to give his outpourings any
credence whatsoever.

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).