Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> On 3/25/2010 5:15 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It also means that as far as copyright law is concerned,
> > compilation copyright can be licensed as its owner sees fit.
> > Got it now?
> 
> There is nothing to "get". The creator of the compilation owns
> the copyright to the arrangement of the works, but cannot copy
> and distribute the arrangement with the works included without
> permission of the owners of the rights in the included works.

Go tell Red Hat and Novell that they are blatantly violating the GPL,
silly Hyman.

Yeah, I know that you're "insufficiently motivated"... right?

http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html

"LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE
LINUX® AND RED HAT® APPLICATIONS

This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the
Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a
collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. "

http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html

"The Software is a collective work of Novell"

Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka
"mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components
even "incompatible" with the GPL.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)