I wasn't going to argue with Les any more, but since he's reverted to what could almost be considered a direct untruth rather than his normal illogical and unparseable nonsense, I suppose I should point that out in case he manages to trick anyone with it. On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:34 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > if you would read the COPYING file, you'd see that there are more > requirements for the permitted aggregations: > "not derived from the Program" > "reasonably considered independent and separate works". It's somewhat misleading to refer to those as 'requirements for the permitted aggregations', because those phrases actually form part of the GPL's explicit description of the aggregations which are _not_ permitted. The GPL explicitly says that it _does_ apply to sections of a collective work which meet both of the above requirements -- sections that are both "not derived from the Program", and "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves. It's not an _actual_ untruth -- strictly speaking, they _are_ part of the requirements for the 'mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium' exception. But only because they're also requirements for the stated restriction which the exception relaxes. Of course you can't be exempted from something that didn't apply in the first place, so that makes them requirements for the exception, too :) We have something like 'if A and B, then the GPL applies. Unless C'. Les is saying that 'A and B' are requirements for that exception. Which in a sense they are. But it's a bit of a disingenuous way to phrase it :) -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
