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

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote.
> The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation.  If two
> pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more
> than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation".
> 
> The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following
> phrase: "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
> a storage or distribution medium".  Not even the most contorted lawyer
> could twist a single compiled binary into that definition.

You're mistaken.

This http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf is from a lawyer.

Read "Linking to GPL Software" and "Copyright Law and Linking".

What say you now, Alan?

Do you still believe in your comical "embryo which is derived from the
egg and sperm" theory of treating aggregations as GNUish "derived"
works?

<chuckles>

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.)