Re: GNU licenses

[David Kastrup]

mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:

> I know. And it's that last sentence -- that you don't have all the
> rights to the combined work, that ticks me off. It means I have to
> GNU the original part as well as the GNU part as long as the two
> form one big program. And that I fail to understand! Why does it
> have to be made that way? What is the problem with, say, just
> releasing the GNU parts (like the single function example above?)?
> Why couldn't the license be written to have to that way? Why must
> the rest of the program go GNU along with it? If you can just
> provide a simple, concise answer as to why the license requires that
> the _rest of the program_, which would _not ordinarily be GNU_ has
> to go GNU? That's all I need.  Then I can argue that if I disagree
> with it.

You have been answered this about half a dozen times by different
people and given links to documents about it.  Also several people
have told you to stop confusing "GNU" and "GPL".

I don't see that repeating those answers will add anything
worthwhile.  Unless you show some attempt of at least reading the
answers given, I won't continue to bother.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum