[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 12:22 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> I'm proposing that in this scenario, if d is true, b would also be true 
> >> if they weren't combined, so the transient combination for distribution 
> >> is irrelevant.  And if b wouldn't be true, then you are left with e.
> > 
> > But (b) is permitted, while (d) is explicitly not permitted. You can't
> > just say "oh, but if I wasn't doing (d) then I'd be doing (b), so that's
> > OK".
> > 
> > Let's consider (b) as 'you are carrying a knife' and (d) as 'you are
> > stabbing me with your knife'. And your excuse as...
> > 
> > "But officer, if (d) is true, then (b) would also be true if I weren't
> > stabbing him. So the transient combination of the knife and his abdomen
> > is irrelevant."
> No, to whatever extent an analogy works it would be that the stabbing 
> occurs in both b & d scenarios and the difference is whether you carried 
> the knife to the scene or it was already there.

No, I think you've completely missed the point.

> > The 'transient combination' is _far_ from being irrelevant. That
> > combination for distribution is very thing that is not permitted.
> Aggregations are explicitly permitted.

Collective works are explicitly not permitted, under some circumstances.

> > That's the whole point in the bit in the GPL which goes "...this
> > License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
> > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute those same
> > sections as part of a while which a work based on the Program, the
> > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License..."
> I don't really see anything there about details you have to observe to 
> maintain a separation.  If you want to make some up, go ahead.  Maybe 
> you can modify the compiler to do it for you.

I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say; I'm sorry. This is
why I stopped responding to you before. On closer inspection, it seems
that what I thought was a rare moment of lucidity from you was actually
Alex's doing, so I should probably go back to ignoring you. Sorry.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]