For the sake of nailing stupid mini-RMS once again. Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [...] > You're misquoting.
I've been quoting FSF's (counter-) argument A The GPL is not a "pooling" or a "cross-licensing" agreement. Here's full quote. ----- In his Response, Plaintiff claims that FSF uses the GPL "to pool and cross-license [FSF's] intellectual property with others." However, as is evident on the face of the agreement itself, the GPL is not a "pooling" or "cross-licensing" agreement. To the contrary, the GPL, which is the target of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, is a software licensing agreement under which the GNU/Linux Operating System is licensed to users. The express purpose of the GPL is to make certain that "the software is free for all its users." (GPL, Preamble, Ex. A.) In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005).1 ----- regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
