Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Unruh wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >Unruh wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> Yes, and you have made the comparison?
>>
>> >Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
>> >under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.
>>
>> ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
>> protected material contained withing the package.
>No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW,
??? Is there some gramatical problem with that sentence.
>RMS' own typical "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire
>[blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved" covers
>compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary)
>idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish "mere
>aggregation" vs GNUish "derived" ("derived" falls under the GPL... or
>else... GNUish "mere aggregation" of GNUish "derived" stuff with
>something else aside for a moment).
Your passions are overriding your English.
>> Have you made the
>> comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?
>Because *you* have to make a (an initial) "comparixon", not me.
Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of
influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright
code could be in the Nokia software.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
