Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: Context:
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf > > The term “compilation” includes collective works. > > Whatever. You still need permission from the owners > of the components to make copies and distribute them. That's in the GPL second section aka "1" (counting from zero). > The GPL lets you do that if you're just including the > programs separately in a collection, but if you're > integrating them into one program you have to license > the whole thing under the GPL. Why do you insist on confusing the second section with the third section aka "2" (counting from zero)? > If someone cares to sue > and claims that the two are indistinguishable and so > they have permission under "mere aggregation", we'll You're really not okay, Hyman. Why would someone who believes to have a permission (under "mere aggregation" or whatever) want to file a lawsuit? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
