On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:34:40 +0200 Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > [...] > > royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you > > can distribute the combined work under another license (or no > > license at all, in which case standard copyright provisions would > > apply). > > Eeckels, Eeckels. No license is needed to "distribute combined work" > under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 109. I mean addition exact copies (e.g. > copies of "library" programs inside "executables" or whatever > containers and aggregations like jars or whatnot) made under 17 USC I've never subscribed to the idea that using a library (distributed with the "OS" or not) turns a program into a derivative work of said library. You're preaching to the choir here. But a program that presents itself as a unit, and is made up of components that work together and only together, I would consider to be something more than a "mere aggregation". And as I have a sneaking suspicion I might prevail in court, I would sue. You have recycled your arguments over and over again, you keep regurgitating them like a seasick cruise ship passenger expensive cocktails, but you utterly fail to convince. > 117 and distributed along with "originals" (e.g. downloaded, implied > license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109. The notion "implied license to save bandwidth" does not occur in the copyright statues, Alex. It is a figment of your imagination. If you berate others for using words not in a text, you could do worse than refraining from more egregious practices yourself. -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the appearance of being a single evil genius? --Mel Rimmer _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss