Re: GPL traitor !

[David Kastrup]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> That's "if", not "only if".  The problem is whether the combined work is
>> more than a mere aggregation of its part so that the original
>> constituents can no longer be told apart well enough to be licensed
>> differently.
>
> Let's speak of the source code to an extension, not the entire
> compiler consisting of the original compiler built with the new
> extension included. That extension is written from scratch, but
> is written to interoperate with the data structures of GCC. The
> source therefore contains many names which also appear in the
> GCC text, and likely many idiomatic uses of the data structures
> which appear similar to uses found in the GCC code.
>
> Such an extension, standing alone in source code, does not require
> permission from the GCC rights holders to be copied and distributed.

But the extension makes no sense without being put into place.  I can't
circumvent weapon laws by selling guns and bullets separately and
claiming that either are completely harmless.

If something clearly is useless as a separate entity, and is exclusively
intended for a combined use, than pretending its separateness will not
convince anybody.

For example, such an extension might be perfectly fine if you can make
reasonably plausible that it is intended solely (or even primarily) as a
_textbook_ _example_.

Copyright laws and their interpretation are a mess.  It is sound advice
to avoid the grey areas if you don't want to get mud on your shoes.

-- 
David Kastrup