Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Think of the following
> >    GPL.c (GPL'd computer program work in source code form)
> >    NonGPL.c (NonGPL'd computer program work in source code form)
> >    aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
> 
> GPL.c is being copied and distributed as a verbatim copy.
> Nothing further is required.
> 
> >    GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form)
> >    NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form)
> >    aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot)
> 
> The source code for the GPLed portion must be made properly
> available. NonGPL.o is irrelevant, because it is combined in
> a "mere aggregation". (A rights holder might choose to argue
> otherwise, though.)
> 
> >    GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form)
> >    NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form)
> >    aggregated into one file executable.
> 
> The source code for both GPL.o and NonGPL.o must be made properly
> available under the GPL, because the two are now part of a combined
> work, and permission to do this is given only if the work as a whole
> is distributed under the GPL.

It is the same "mere aggregation" (copying but not creating a derivative
work) as in the other two cases, idiot.

"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, 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 does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization
of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the
pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself.
"[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with
the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v.
Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)"

Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)
Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

ICE MILLER
One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002
317.236.2100

regards,
alexander.

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)