Recommendation for a CL data structures library
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: [2nd CfP] 7th European Lisp Workshop at ECOOP'10, June 21/22
Next: §§§ 2010 Cheap wholesale ED Hardy Suit, Baby Suit, Lacoste Suit ect at www.rijing-trade.com <Paypal Payment>
From: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 08:51 On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html > "The Software is a collective work of Novell" > > Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka > "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components > even "incompatible" with the GPL. And there's no problem with that: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> 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 the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't going to have such trouble.
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 10:02 Hyman Rosen wrote: > > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html > > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " > > > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html > > "The Software is a collective work of Novell" > > > > Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka > > "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components > > even "incompatible" with the GPL. > > And there's no problem with that: > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > 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 the compilation and its resulting copyright are not > used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users > beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work > in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other > parts of the aggregate. > > As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the > the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a > distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a > unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't > going to have such trouble. Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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.)
From: RJack on 29 Mar 2010 11:04 Hyman Rosen wrote: > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: >> http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html The Software is a >> collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " >> >> http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html "The Software is >> a collective work of Novell" >> >> Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka >> "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL >> components even "incompatible" with the GPL. > > And there's no problem with that: > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> 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 the > compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the > access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the > individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate > does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the > aggregate. > > As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the > the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a > distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a > unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't > going to have such trouble. As a delusional GPL advocate you choose to deliberately ignore the plain consequences of U.S. Copyright law. The GPL is preempted by 17 USC sec. 301, it is unenforceable under contract law and is a misuse of copyright. All this discussion of the legal consequences of the GPL is delusional tilting at Windmills. Even a dysfunctional mind is a terrible thing to waste. Sincerely, RJack :)
From: Alexander Terekhov on 29 Mar 2010 10:11 Forgot one bit. Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > Hyman Rosen wrote: > > > > On 3/26/2010 5:23 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > > > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html > > > The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. " > > > > > > http://www.novell.com/products/opensuse/eula.html > > > "The Software is a collective work of Novell" > > > > > > Note that Red Hat's and Novell's collective works (compilations aka > > > "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak) contain tons of non-GPL components > > > even "incompatible" with the GPL. > > > > And there's no problem with that: > > <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > > 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 the compilation and its resulting copyright are not > > used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users > > beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work > > in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other > > parts of the aggregate. Snipping ambiguity/undefined terms it says just exactly what the GFDL says (recall that under copyright law software is protected as literary works modulo the AFC test): "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. " IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2, stupid. > > > > As an anti-GPL crank, you choose to deliberately misunderstand the > > the GPL's distinction between aggregating a covered work into a > > distribution with other works and integrating a covered work into a > > unified program. But that's you. People without axes to grind aren't > > going to have such trouble. > > Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective > works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified > program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL > and/or copyright law? regards, alexander. P.S. "Every computer program in the world, BusyBox included, exceeds the originality standards required by copyright law." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' P.P.S. "Of course correlation implies causation! Without this fundamental principle, no science would ever make any progress." Hyman Rosen <hyrosen(a)mail.com> The Silliest GPL 'Advocate' -- 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.)
From: Hyman Rosen on 29 Mar 2010 10:12
On 3/29/2010 10:02 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Stop moving the goalposts Hyman. You've been talking about collective > works aka compilations. How come that now it's called "a unified > program"? Don't you know that such a term is not defined in the GPL > and/or copyright law? The "unified program" is an extension of a GPL-covered work or a larger program which has been formed by being combined with a GPL- covered work, just as the GPL describes. Separate permission is required from rights holders every time a work is copied and distributed as part of a collective work, and the rights holders may choose to distinguish what permissions they grant based on the nature of the collective work, or in fact based on anything at all. The creators of the GPL choose to grant different permission based upon whether a covered work is included as part of an aggregate on a distribution medium, or whether it is integrated into a single program. Your willful misinterpretation of the permissions granted by the GPL serves your purposes as an anti-GPL crank, but fools no one. |