Re: what is the current status of GPL v3

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>        These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> And this means that GNU inetutils cannot be part of the GNU system?
> Amazing.

Indeed, another strawmen.  Of course a compilation consists of parts.

Do you still have a clue what you are arguing about?

>    > Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I
>    > guess it too isn't part of the GNU system.
>
>    Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity
>    (with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright
>    assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity.
>    However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically
>    been distributed as separate entities.  So parts of Emacs can be
>    considered aggregated.  There is no necessity for drawing a line
>    here, however, since copyright and license for the components in
>    distribution rest with FSF and the GPL.
>
> Copyright doesn't state if something is or isn't part of a operating
> system.

You were arguing against GNU systems being compilations.  And that's
an issue defined by copyright law.

>    > Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have
>    > the GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat.
>
>    It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation
>    (in the case of GCC).  The C library, however, is linked with the
>    executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation.  The C library,
>    however, is licensed under the LGPL.
>
> The license and copyright have nothing to do with this.  The GNU C
> Library is part of the GNU system, doesn't matter if you do not like
> it or not.

Another straw man.  Of course, a compilation has parts, and the C
library was not a topic of discussion, anyway.

>    Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be
>    about.  You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and
>    that concerns its copyright situation and nothing else.
>
> No, it doesn't.  You can have a single entity with several copyright
> holders.  Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to
> you?

But the "operating system" is not a single entity.  You can take, for
example, the ftp client and compile and use it under a different
operating system.  That's what the autoconf stuff is all about:
portability.  And something which is portable and maintainable as a
separate entity is a component of a compilation.

>    > GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many
>    > projects, yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU
>    > projects which are part of the GNU system.
>
>    Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation
>    with regard to the copyright situation.
>
> Nope, it isn't.  Please read up on what a compilation is, and please
> stop confusing compilations with the GNU system.  Next thing we know
> is that OpenBSD isn't _really_ a single entity; a operating system,
> but a compilation of totally disjoint tools that Theo thought was nice
> to publish.  

With regard to copyright law, of course it is a compilation.  For
example, it comes with gcc, without this putting the whole of OpenBSD
under the GPL.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum