Re: GNU licenses

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:34:40 +0200
Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:

> 
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> [...]
> > royalties, or a license fee). If you come to such an agreement, you
> > can distribute the combined work under another license (or no
> > license at all, in which case standard copyright provisions would
> > apply).
> 
> Eeckels, Eeckels. No license is needed to "distribute combined work" 
> under 17 USC 117 and 17 USC 109. I mean addition exact copies (e.g. 
> copies of "library" programs inside "executables" or whatever 
> containers and aggregations like jars or whatnot) made under 17 USC 

I've never subscribed to the idea that using a library (distributed
with the "OS" or not) turns a program into a derivative work of said
library. You're preaching to the choir here.

But a program that presents itself as a unit, and is made up of
components that work together and only together, I would consider to be
something more than a "mere aggregation". And as I have a sneaking
suspicion I might prevail in court, I would sue. 

You have recycled your arguments over and over again, you keep
regurgitating them like a seasick cruise ship passenger expensive
cocktails, but you utterly fail to convince. 

> 117 and distributed along with "originals" (e.g. downloaded, implied 
> license to save bandwidth aside for a moment) under 17 USC 109.

The notion "implied license to save bandwidth" does not occur in the
copyright statues, Alex. It is a figment of your imagination. If you
berate others for using words not in a text, you could do worse than
refraining from more egregious practices yourself. 

-- 
Stefaan A Eeckels
-- 
Isn't it amazing how a large number of evil morons can give the
appearance of being a single evil genius?          --Mel Rimmer