[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: Problem with GPLv3 FAQ about linking with Visual C++
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:43:06 +0100

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/2/2010 10:08 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> That someone else cannot understand the difference between
> "mere aggregation" and a combined work does not make you
> correct.
> >
> This one contradicts your thesis. Big surprise, that.
>      Software combinations involving dynamic links usually
>      lack permanency, combination creativity, and internal
>      changes. Even software combinations through static
>      links do not necessarily affect adaptation rights,
>      because such linking often results in the creation of
>      a compilation or noncreative aggregation of programs
>      or sub-programs. Nevertheless, under the U.S. Copyright
>      Act, software developers typically have to obtain a
>      license before they may combine programs through static
>      linking because such linking affects the duplication
>      rights of the linked program’s copyright owner.

Stop being utter moron Hyman. GPL's "mere aggregation" clause gives
permision to combine programs through static linking just like in the
case of dynamic linking with both referencer and referencee computer
program works shipped together ("on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium" or whatever).

"In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the
GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed
under the GPL: "In addition, 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 does not bring the other
work under the scope of this License." 

Plaintiff's mischaracterization of the GPL in his Response has no
bearing on the resolution of the pending Motion to Dismiss because the
Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the terms of an
attached contract conflict with the allegations of the complaint, the
contract controls." Centers v. Centennial Mortg., Inc., 398 F.3d 930,
933 (7th Cir. 2005)


Respectfully submitted,
s/ Curtis W. McCauley
Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)

Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software
Foundation, Inc.

One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002

Note that the "mere aggregation" clause is still there albeit in a more
muddied form.


"A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate
and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if [snip nonsense]. When
the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to
the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative
works of the Document."


"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
“aggregate” if [snip nonsense]. Inclusion of a covered work in an
aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the

And note additional nonsense in the form of undefined terms such as
"extensions" and "larger program".

So you should better stay away from the GNU pseudo-legal
self-contradicting nonsense altogether. 


(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.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]