Re: Recommendation for a CL data structures library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Forgot one bit.

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >
> > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
> > > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. "
> > >
> > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html
> > > "The Software is a collective work of Novell"
> > >
> > > Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka
> > > "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components
> > > even "incompatible" with the GPL.
> >
> > And there's no problem with that:
> > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
> >      A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> >      works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
> >      and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
> >      in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
> >      “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not
> >      used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users
> >      beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work
> >      in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other
> >      parts of the aggregate.

Snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL
says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary
works modulo the AFC test):

"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 <snip nonsense>. 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. "

IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2, stupid.

> >
> > As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the
> > the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a
> > distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a
> > unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't
> > going to have such trouble.
> 
> Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective
> works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified
> program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL
> and/or copyright law?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the
originality standards required by copyright law."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this 
fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress."

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate'

--
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.)