On 10/1/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > MJ Ray writes: > > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 30 Sep 2005 19:06:35 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > If they are compiled in in some way that means that the GPL'd work > >> > contains detailed knowledge of the expression of the CC'd work, > >> > then it is a derivative work and not possible to distribte under GPL. > >> > >> Sez who? (Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) > > > > Sez law. If knowing that expression led me to write a new large > > expression a particular way, wouldn't you call it derived? > > SCOX will no doubt be glad to hear that its "methods and processes" > copyright infringement theory is recognized by and agreeable to free > software advocates. Or is that not what you meant?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/1968 Note that according to IBM, SCO's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse. That's tenth IBM's defense. And the same applies to rather similar and equally (if not more) lunatic GNUtian's claims... which, as I strongly suspect, played the key role to inspire and "initiate" Yarro, Darl & Co. regards, alexander. -- http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/004019.html
