Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> GPL because the work as a whole has to be licensed under the GPL, > > Man oh man. Go back to doctor, retard. Try another one. > > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
And another long quote contradicting Alexander. Cute. Again, dearest Alexander, like what you quoted tells you, the question is what _whole_ work can be considered a derivative of the GPLed work. That there may be parts of the whole that are clearly _not_ a derivative of the GPLed work does not change that permission _exceeding_ the provisions of copyright law to redistribute and modify the GPLed portions is only granted on the permission that the whole work is licensed under the GPL. That does not make every part of the whole a derivative of the GPLed portion, but that is neither required nor even relevant. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
