Re: what is the current status of GPL v3

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:

>    > FTP is part of every GNU work station, but the procotol, like X,
>    > isn't developed by the FSF.
>
>    Neither are the FTP clients.
>
> So GNU inetutils which provides GNU ftp isn't part of the GNU system?
> Nor is the GNU ftpd which GNU inetutils also provides part of the GNU
> system?

<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/inetutils/>

    InetUtils is a collection of common network programs. It includes
    (amongst others):

        * An ftp client and server.
        * A telnet client and server.
        * An rsh client and server.
        * An rlogin client and server.
        * A tftp client and server. 

    These are improved versions of programs originally from BSD.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>    >    There is a difference between assembling a system, and
>    >    developing its components.  The FSF certainly does not develop
>    >    X11.
>    >
>    > Neither does the FSF develop FTP, SMTP, Gopher, HTTP, ....  I
>    > fail to see what protocols have to do with this.
>
>    So does anybody else.  The protocols are a blatant red herring
>    brought up by yourself.  The topic is the programs and libraries
>    constituting a GNU system.  And those are to a significant degree
>    developed by third parties and used as components in a compilation.
>
> Emacs was to a significant degreed developed by third parties, I
> guess it too isn't part of the GNU system.

Is is a component of a compilation, but as such is a single entity
(with very few exceptions (c) FSF due to the practice of copyright
assignments) and has been developed mostly as a single entity.
However, there are subsystems (like calc) which have historically been
distributed as separate entities.  So parts of Emacs can be considered
aggregated.  There is no necessity for drawing a line here, however,
since copyright and license for the components in distribution rest
with FSF and the GPL.

> Nor is GCC, which is being developed by RedHat, and then we have the
> GNU C library which also is being developed by RedHat.

It sure is part of any GNU system, in the form of an aggregation (in
the case of GCC).  The C library, however, is linked with the
executables, and that exceeds mere aggregation.  The C library,
however, is licensed under the LGPL.

>    > As the head for the GNU project he is responsible for it.  He
>    > might not have written every single line, but he is the head of
>    > the GNU project, whether you like it or not.  And that is what
>    > St. IGNUcius says.
>
>    It is irrelevant to the copyright situation.
>
> The copyright situation doesn't dictate if something is part or not
> of an operating system, or a project.

Looks like you again confused what this thread is supposed to be
about.  You objected against GNU systems being a compilation, and that
concerns its copyright situation and nothing else.

You really should get a mail client suitable for your short attention
span.

> GCC isn't fully copyrighted by the FSF, neither are many projects,
> yet they are GNU projects, then there are non-GNU projects which are
> part of the GNU system.

Which, for that reason, is mostly to be considered a compilation with
regard to the copyright situation.

> Please do something useful, it is quite sad that you cannot even
> acknowledge that you are simply trolling right now.

Not sharing your delusions is hardly trolling.

> I sometimes wonder if you are infact worse than Alexander, atleast
> he can be funny at times.

You mean: at least you don't look too silly in comparison with him.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum