> To see how code compiled in files is not "mere aggregation", look at
> the work involved in disaggregating it. You'd have to be a programmer
I asked a lawyer. I asked a lawyer about this three years ago in fact. He
didn't see a different between tar or #include or ELF. They way you pack
multiple files into an archive doesn't matter. You can aggregate files by
a. tar cvf foo.tar gplapp.tar.gz nonfreeapp.tar.gz
b. #include <gplapp.tar.uu.h>
#include <nonfreeapp.tar.uu.h>
c. ld -r foo.o gplapp.tar.encap.o nonfreeapp.encap.o
What matters is whether they are linked and dependant.
> consider the following. As spelled out in the GPL, you agree to a number of
>conditions to get permission to distribute GPL'ed software. So, are you
> claiming:
> 1. that the FSF actually intended to allow people to #include
> proprietary uploadable data in GPL'ed object files, or
> 2. that this is a legal drafting error on the part of FSF
> that you have discovered,
> 3. that the FSF intended the GPL to prohbit such comingling
> and the GPL does prohibit it, but _______________?
I can't read Richard Stallman's mind. Richard just ranted and waved his arms
a lot when I asked him questions about the GPL and the PC BIOS firmware.
Alan
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
