Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > Hint: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
> > which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole
> > must be on the terms of this License".
> 
> You are making a spectacle of yourself.  No court will answer to
> "hints", 

I've quoted the GPL, genious. Here's one more quote (also from the GPL): 

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
 contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
 intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
 derivative or collective works based on the Program."

Note the use of the phrase 'derivative OR COLLECTIVE works' (although 
it's hard to see what does "collective works" term have to do with a 
permission to "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any 
portion of it"; it would seem that it would be more relevant in the 
context of Section 1 and Section 3, not Section 2 [first sale aside 
for a moment ;-) ]). Now, Red Hat sort of concedes that their distro 
is a "collective work"... See the light now? This might also help:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=28SV0-1oE-11%40gated-at.bofh.it

regards,
alexander.