[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 16:11:30 -0000
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20100228)

Hyman Rosen wrote:
On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " "The Software is a collective work of Novell"

Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka
"mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components even "incompatible" with the GPL.

And there's no problem with that: <> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.

As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't
 going to have such trouble.

As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain
consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec.
301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of
copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is
delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible
thing to waste.

RJack :)

reply via email to

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