Re: GNU License, Again

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> [...]
>>    So then why must it too be free, why must the license require that
>>    to be free?
>> 
>> To keep things free, again, this was answered as well before.
>
> Man oh man, you're krank. Suppose he takes PUBLIC DOMAIN work and 
> links it with the GPL'd work. Nobody can apply ANY copyright license 
> to work in public domain.

You are confused.  Licenses apply to particular _copies_, not some
general fuzzy "availability" concept.

And the decisive mark of public domain work is that you can license
copies that use them in whatever manner at your discretion.  There is
no requirement to do this in a way where the public domain part can
still be isolated and extracted.

> So how can public domain be possibly "compatible" with the GNU GPL
> given that "you must cause the whole work to be under the GPL as per
> section 2(b)"? Uh GNUtian retards.

Because it does not stay "public domain" when it is assembled with
other material.

You can't, for example, disassemble Microsoft's network stack and use
it elsewhere under your discretion just because it is based on
BSDlite.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum