Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
>> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
>> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
>> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
 
>> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
>> phrase: "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>> a storage or distribution medium".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
>> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.
 
> You're mistaken.

You mean lawyers are even more contorted than I thought?
 
> This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

> Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

> What say you now, Alan?

The whole thing is a mess of rambling gibberish.  Is there anything
pertinent anywhere in it?

Actually, it kind of reminds me of your style a bit.  Are you the
author of that PDF file?

> Do you still believe in your comical "embryo which is derived from the
> egg and sperm" theory of treating aggregations as GNUish "derived"
> works?

That is indeed comical indeed, but it's so different from anything I've
written, apart from mentioning the fusion of gametes as an analogy, that
there's nothing sensible to be said about it.

Is begin derogatory about the FSF still your hobby? 

> regards,
> alexander.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).