Re: GNU licenses

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
[...]
> But a program that presents itself as a unit, and is made up of
> components that work together and only together, I would consider to be
> something more than a "mere aggregation". And as I have a sneaking
> suspicion I might prevail in court, I would sue.
> 
> You have recycled your arguments over and over again, you keep
> regurgitating them like a seasick cruise ship passenger expensive
> cocktails, but you utterly fail to convince.

Try

http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf

might help.

> 
> > 117 and distributed along with "originals" (e.g. downloaded, implied
> > license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109.
> 
> The notion "implied license to save bandwidth" does not occur in the
> copyright statues, Alex. It is a figment of your imagination. If you

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html

> berate others for using words not in a text, you could do worse than
> refraining from more egregious practices yourself.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that is a figment of your imagination. The FSF is now quite busy 
adding express license for "bittorents" and alike in the upcoming GPL. 

That practice is currently under implied license (given the 
current GPL). (Otherwise we got a whole bunch of criminals given 
the horrendous scale of copyright infringement in GNU stuff under 
the current GPL.)

regards,
alexander.