Re: GPL traitor !

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The explicit permission to "mere aggregate" is good enough
>  > for any sort of collective works, silly.
> 
> No, of course it is not. But that just gets us to the basic underlying
> incorrectness of your claims and the correctness of mine, so further
> discussion along these lines is fruitless - we will simply continue to
> say "yes it is" - no it isn't" back and forth.

Hyman, I suggest that you read another FSF's "copyleft" license for
"documents" (note that software is protected as literary works subject
to limitations from the AFC test).

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

"AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and
independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the copyright resulting
from the compilation is not used to limit the legal rights of the
compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. When the
Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the
other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works
of the Document."

Note that "if the copyright resulting from the compilation is not used"
part is utter non sequitur due to the statutory limited nature of
compilation's copyright.

Got it now, Hyman?

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.)