Re: More GPL questions

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:

[... annotations ...]

> > It's a wholly new work. It contains _no_ code from the libraries or
> > the OS, and thus it cannot be a derivative work.
> 
> But in the literary case, exactly that does _not_ hold, according to
> the letter of the law.

Uh retard dak. Here's a bunch of annotations from my previous message 
but without Stallman's work.

-------
RMS is unaware of 17 USC 117
the term "combined works" is not used in the GPL
RMS is hallucinating
"Lesser" (in fact much greater) GPL moronity stems from RMS'
misunderstanding of the term "derivative work" under copyright law
with respect to ability to infect separate works under independent
copyright merely "linked" with the GPL'd works. ...
RMS playing words as usual, now it's "extended versions"
RMS is bluffing as usual
combination is "mere aggregation"
RMS is hallucinating once again, the GPL lost miserably in MySQL 
court case
GPL-"compatibility" is another RMS' hallucinatory concept, the GPL 
prescribes the GPL and only the GPL. It says nothing about mythical
"compatibility"
RMS means combined
oh really
yeah right, FSF's crackpot copyleft derivation theory 
(gpl-faq.html#OOPLang) in action: "Subclassing is creating a 
derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL affect the whole 
program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class."
LOL
Now we all know how good is RMS' crystal ball
-------

Now go to doctor and let him know that you consider this collection 
of statements to be a derivative work of Stallman ("according to
the letter of the law"). 

regards,
alexander.