From: Hyman Rosen on
On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term
> "extension" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law.
> Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is
> also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law.

The GPL is written in English, and the English language is sufficient
to determine what these things mean. Again, as an anti-GPL crank, you
prefer to claim ambiguity, but it isn't your opinion which matters.
From: Alexander Terekhov on

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 3/29/2010 10:11 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > IOW, it's "mere aggegation" just like in the GPLv2
>
> Yes, the mere aggregation part is mere aggregation, just as the
> combined program part is the combined program part. The GPL grants
> permission for covered works to be copied and distributed as part
> of a collective work differently depending on the nature of the
> integration of the covered work into the collective work. Since
> permission to be copied and distributed as part of a collective
> work must be obtained separately for each collective work, there
> is no problem in doing so.

To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY,
ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software
copyrights under the GPL, you retard:

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

"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)"

Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)
Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

ICE MILLER
One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002
317.236.2100

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: Alexander Terekhov on

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 3/29/2010 10:22 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > You must mean a derivative work of a GPL-covered work because the term
> > "extension" is also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law.
> > Full stop once again for the same reason: the term "larger program" is
> > also not defined in the GPL and/or copyright law.
>
> The GPL is written in English, and the English language is sufficient
> to determine what these things mean. Again, as an anti-GPL crank, you
> prefer to claim ambiguity, but it isn't your opinion which matters.

To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY,
ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL,
you retard:

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

"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)"

Philip A. Whistler (#1205-49)
Curtis W. McCauley (#16456-49)
Attorneys for Defendant, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

ICE MILLER
One American Square Box 82001
Indianapolis, IN 46282-0002
317.236.2100

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
On 3/29/2010 10:39 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> The courts have yet to analyze a copyleft provision for misuse,
> but the courts have addressed an analogous provision - the
> grantback.

<http://www.jstor.org/pss/1285278>
The Supreme Court held that though grant-back clauses
can easily be used to violate antitrust laws, they are
not illegal per se as a patent misuse.
From: Hyman Rosen on
On 3/29/2010 10:44 AM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> To quote the FSF itself, the GPL itself rejects ANY (to repeat: ANY,
> ANY, ANY) automatic aggregation of software
> copyrights under the GPL

That's correct. It rejects any *automatic* aggregation of software
copyrights. Instead, each case must be examined individually to see
which kind of aggregation is occurring, and then the correct part of
the GPL must be applied to that case if the aggregate is to be legally
copied and distributed.