Hyman Rosen wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Think of the following > > GPL.c (GPL'd computer program work in source code form) > > NonGPL.c (NonGPL'd computer program work in source code form) > > aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot) > > GPL.c is being copied and distributed as a verbatim copy. > Nothing further is required. > > > GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form) > > NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form) > > aggregated into one file (tarball, ISO image, or whatnot) > > The source code for the GPLed portion must be made properly > available. NonGPL.o is irrelevant, because it is combined in > a "mere aggregation". (A rights holder might choose to argue > otherwise, though.) > > > GPL.o (GPL'd computer program work in object code form) > > NonGPL.o (NonGPL'd computer program work in object code form) > > aggregated into one file executable. > > The source code for both GPL.o and NonGPL.o must be made properly > available under the GPL, because the two are now part of a combined > work, and permission to do this is given only if the work as a whole > is distributed under the GPL.
It is the same "mere aggregation" (copying but not creating a derivative work) as in the other two cases, idiot. "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 that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930, 933 (7th Cir. 2005)" Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49) Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49) Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc. ICE MILLER One American Square Box 82001 Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002 317.236.2100 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
