Re: Question about the GPL copyright notice and the statement ofcopying permission not being included in all the source files of aproduct.

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> Not unless it is clear that there is no relationship
> between the components of the "bundle". 

Bullshit.

http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf

<quote author=Hollaar>

Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft 
may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any 
"integrity of the work" argument. The United States recognizes 
"moral rights" of attribution and integrity only for works of 
visual art in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 
U.S.C. 106A and the definition of "work of visual art" in 17 
U.S.C. 101.) A bookstore can replace the last chapter of a 
mystery novel without infringing its copyright, as long as they 
are not reprinting the other chapters but are simply removing 
the last chapter and replacing it with an alternative one, but 
must not pass the book off as the original. Having a copyright 
in a work does not give that copyright owner unlimited freedom 
in the terms he can impose.

</quote>

Note that the GPL does allow "reprinting". That's Section 1. 

regards,
alexander.