Re: IBM doesn't like the GPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > So a tarball with all the sources is somehow different from compiled and
> > linked binary resulting from the same sources
> 
> Of course. The former is a verbatim copy of the source code, readily
> reconstructed from its transmitted form. The other is not. In any case,
> the only thing you have argued is that the former may not be a verbatim
> copy either. It seems unlikely that such a view would prevail, however.
> 
>  > See also Section 3
> 
> Of what? The copyright code? The GPL? You cannot expect people to make
> your arguments for you, because your arguments are invariably incorrect.
> You need to state your arguments, and then we will point out to you how
> they are wrong.

Uh silly Hyman. 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)

v.

   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)

v. 

   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 http://www.bellevuelinux.org/executable.html


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.)