Richard Stallman wrote: > > You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not > really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a > larger combined work.
Your silly claims like "If a.o is under the GPL and talks to b.o which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all three files, if all three are combined" are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine of first sale. C'mon, give it up and stop bluffing. You're on record: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/01/1052216&mode=nocomment "RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work, then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our licenses say, they are operative only for works that are derivative of our code. A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative, if the courts think it is not." Or is this yet another case of "fabricated responses"? <chuckles> http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-March/004301.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004306.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004308.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004309.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004321.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004353.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004358.html http://xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004384.html regards, alexander.
