Stepping in to defend Mr. Edwards, though not his claims or conclusions. On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:34:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ... > > > ... > > ... > ... > > > > > This definition emphasizes that "derivative work", which is in any > > > > case a phrase with a defined legal meaning, is to have its meaning > > > > under copyright law in the applicable jurisdiction and _no_other_. > > > > Each and every time the phrase "work[s] based on the Program" appears > > > > in the text of the GPL, it means this and only this. > > > > > > That's an assertion. > > > > > > You've not presented any examples where this oh-so-important > > > assertion of yours makes any difference. > > > > The "work" (subspecies "copyrightable collection", or "collective > > work" in 17 U.S.C. 101) known as Debian sarge CD #1. You simply > > cannot read C not to include this "work". Or you can, but I can't > > follow you there, nor do I believe that any court of competent > > jurisdiction in any Berne Convention country can. > > I assert that that work satsifies the terms of the GPL (unless > we've done something really stupid, like include programs which > mix GPLed code with non-GPLed code). > > The GPL's mere aggregation clause makes this easy. >
I believe that this is true (in the hypothetical case that the GPL FAQ is right, which is the topic primarily being discussed here). > > > I see no basis here for assuming that the GPL is incorrect about > > > what it says. > > > > Well, whether I'm right or not (and who's to say, outside a court of > > law?), it's now well beyond the point at which the level of my > > pedantry has to be insulting the reader's intelligence, so I think I'd > > best drop it. No hard feelings, OK? > > Up to you. > > I am choosing to ignore your rather long and elliptical assertions about > the rigidity of english grammar. However, if you want to discuss the > legal issues, I'll continue that part of the discussion. > > Reading between the lines, I believe you're ignoring the GPL's > "mere aggregation" clause. I also believe you are trying to > bend the definition of "work based on the Program" to account > for the treatment of that clause in the context of this license. > The way I read it, Mr. Edwards is starting from a different meaning of "work based on the program" and related terms, and then concluding that the "mere aggregation" clause is a no-op under that interpretation. Although this is one of the less elegantly phrased parts of his messages so far. > Furthermore, you seem to think that the legal phrase "derivative > work" means something less than what it means (otherwise your > example of the Debian CD set wouldn't make sense within the > context you've been expressing). > I think that Mr. Edwards has been stating very clearly up front that this is precisely what he thinks and precisely the basis for most of his other conclusions. [ See also my replies to Mr. Edwards elsewhere in this thread ] IANAL, TINLA, IANADD Jakob -- This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings, do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue. Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
