Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Rjack]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > Subsuming other non-GPL works (licensed without permission to
> > > sublicense under the GPL) and pretending that "a whole" is
> > > under the GPL is utter legal nonsense.
> > Fortunately, such permission is given: 
> > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> 2. Grant of
> > Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
> > License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, 
> > worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable 
> > copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, 
> > publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
> > the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
>
> It can be sublicensed but preserving original terms for material 
> licensed under the Apache License. The License defines the term 
> Derivative Works:
>
> "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or
> Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for
> which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
> other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of
> authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works
> shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely
> link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and
> Derivative Works thereof.
>
> such that "a whole" doesn't include the preexisting material.
> Now,
>
> "You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications
> and may provide additional or different license terms and
> conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your
> modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole,
> provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work
> otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License."
>
> but that has nothing to do with "a whole" in the GNUish sense.

Give up Alex. You'll never convince the Freetards that 17 USC sec.
103(b) exists:

"(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only
to the material contributed by the author of such work, as
distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.
The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or
enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any
copyright protection in the preexisting material."

The Freetards have moooooooooooooooooooooved that specific section
right out of the Copyright Act and banished it from their GNU Republic.

ROFL ROFL ROFL