From: Hyman Rosen on
On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, 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, there is no automatic aggregation of software
copyright under the GPL. Any acceptance of the GPL for a work,
collective or derivative, is strictly voluntary on the part of
the secondary author.
From: Alexander Terekhov on

Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> On 3/29/2010 3:53 PM, 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, there is no automatic aggregation of software
> copyright under the GPL. Any acceptance of the GPL for a work,
> collective or derivative, is strictly voluntary on the part of
> the secondary author.

Go to doctor, silly Hyman.

http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf

"A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its
software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights
are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking
to control external activities and subject matter�namely, the use of
independent programs. Depending on the context, such a clause could,
in effect, constitute a prohibition on using competing products. In
any event, such a clause would limit a licensee�s right to create
compilations and non-creative combinations�rights that the Copyright
Act declares to be free, in contrast to the right to prepare
derivative works.196 Thus, such a copyright owner would seem to run a
significant risk that a court would classify such a clause as
copyright misuse with the dramatic result that the copyright owner
would be denied copyright protection even against outright piracy. A
licensor who merely prohibits licensees from creating derivative
works, as the term is defined by statute and through combinations or
otherwise, would generally remain within the scope of its statutory
rights and not risk a finding of copyright misuse.

The need to prevent an abuse of intellectual property law is
internationally recognized.197"

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 4:20 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> "It will be unprofitable
> THAT'S AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

No, it's not. There is no public policy that it must
be possible to profit in certain fields of endeavor.
From: Hyman Rosen on
On 3/29/2010 4:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/21_04_04.pdf

This is a quote of one person's opinions, not of a
decided case, so it needs to be understood in that
light.

> "A licensor who contractually prohibited the combination of its
> software with other programs in situations where adaptation rights
> are not affected would exceed the scope of its copyright by seeking
> to control external activities and subject matter�namely, the use of
> independent programs.

Fortunately, the GPL does not prohibit this, so any analysis
of the consequences of such a prohibition is irrelevant to
the GPL.

<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
A �covered work� means either the unmodified Program or
a work based on the Program.
....
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do
not convey, without conditions so long as your license
otherwise remains in force.
From: Alexander Terekhov on

Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
> A �covered work� means either the unmodified Program or
> a work based on the Program.

Uh stupid Hyman... yes, I've been telling you all along that the GPL
doesn't cover non-GPL'd works included in compilations (aka collective
works, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU-speak).

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.)