Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> 
> > I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code
> > is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's
> > copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary
> > is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in
> > GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation".
> 
> This may be true.  That you personally believe this, I mean.  But that
> belief is mistaken.
> 
> "Mere aggregation" means making a loose collection of separate things.

Alan, my dictionary says that "mere aggregation" means a thing being
nothing more than an aggregation and that it has nothing to do with
"loose" vs "tight" aggregation.

Do you agree that neither "loose" nor "tight" aggregation of multiple
independent computer program works creates a derivative work under the
Copyright Act of the United States of America (don't confuse it with
unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic), Alan?

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.)