Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> >> >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >> > I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on >> >> > record: <quote> 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 >> >> >> >> "together with" does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins. >> > >> > And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention >> > software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking >> > is irrelevant. >> >> Except that it isn't because you don't link unrelated pieces of >> software (well, you can, but that is just aggregating them in one >> library). They have to interface. > > So what? By that standard, a "GPL incompatible" (whatever that > means) email program would violate the copyright law if it > downloaded or send mail from/to a GPL'd mail server.
Uh, no. Because they communicate through a standardized interface not particular to those programs. If I pack a statue in a standard rectangular box, I can sell that box on Ebay afterwards without problems. If I pack a statue in expanding molding foam, I can't sell the molds afterwards on Ebay without problems. > That may well be true in the GNU Republic, but only in the GNU > Republic. Which happens to be pretty much every civilized country outside of Terekhov-lala-land. But I am being redundant. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
