On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 12:22 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > David Woodhouse wrote: > >> I'm proposing that in this scenario, if d is true, b would also be true > >> if they weren't combined, so the transient combination for distribution > >> is irrelevant. And if b wouldn't be true, then you are left with e. > > > > But (b) is permitted, while (d) is explicitly not permitted. You can't > > just say "oh, but if I wasn't doing (d) then I'd be doing (b), so that's > > OK". > > > > Let's consider (b) as 'you are carrying a knife' and (d) as 'you are > > stabbing me with your knife'. And your excuse as... > > > > "But officer, if (d) is true, then (b) would also be true if I weren't > > stabbing him. So the transient combination of the knife and his abdomen > > is irrelevant." > > No, to whatever extent an analogy works it would be that the stabbing > occurs in both b & d scenarios and the difference is whether you carried > the knife to the scene or it was already there. No, I think you've completely missed the point. > > The 'transient combination' is _far_ from being irrelevant. That > > combination for distribution is very thing that is not permitted. > > Aggregations are explicitly permitted. Collective works are explicitly not permitted, under some circumstances. > > That's the whole point in the bit in the GPL which goes "...this > > License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you > > distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute those same > > sections as part of a while which a work based on the Program, the > > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License..." > > I don't really see anything there about details you have to observe to > maintain a separation. If you want to make some up, go ahead. Maybe > you can modify the compiler to do it for you. I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say; I'm sorry. This is why I stopped responding to you before. On closer inspection, it seems that what I thought was a rare moment of lucidity from you was actually Alex's doing, so I should probably go back to ignoring you. Sorry. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
