Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's funny - remember this post is in response to my exact quote of
the license section 2b. Do you really consider what the license
actually say as misinformation?
When you quote it out of context, you turn it into misinformation,
yes.
The context is that it is a part of what you must agree to do if you
want to do anything with _every_ GPL-encumbered work that copyright law
alone would not permit. It is only agreeing to those terms that gives
you additional rights. There are no other options. If you don't or
can't apply those terms to all parts or you can't share any that
require it.
Please. If you are serious about trying to make progress in this
discussion, go talk to a lawyer and stop making things up. If you
proceed further without talking to a lawyer, the only possible
conclusion is that you are only interested in wasting our time.
A lawyer can't change what it says.
FTR, I did get a lawyer's opinion on that, from the same legal counsel
that advises the FSF, who happens to be the author and the copyright
holder of AFAIK the largest body of code available under the GPL.
If the FSF doesn't not believe that the work-as-a-whole clause actually
means the terms must cover the work as a whole, why don't they make
another license that says what they want it to mean? Would this
imaginative interpretation also permit sharing of GPL-covered components
modified to link with proprietary libraries among people who otherwise
have the right to do so (i.e. all concerned parties have their own
license to the proprietary part). If it does, or you can explain the
wording that differentiates between this scenario and parts that are
under a different licence that the FSF happens to like this week, then
I'll believe you are on to something.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
