On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and > hence of 'work based on the Program'"
And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL. > > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being > > construed here: > > > > If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't > > granted license for that case. > > You are so utterly and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and > the implication of "construed narrowly" in this context, as to > entirely lose my respect. I'm not claiming that this is your argument. I'm claiming that this is the structure of the GPL. I think your "entirely lose my respect" quip means that you think that license isn't needed for some cases because license has already been granted for other cases. Or maybe not. I certainly can't claim that I understand your arguments -- I have to guess to figure out what it is you think you're saying. -- Raul
