Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The only basis I can see for saying that this doesn't require modified >> > copies be licensed appropriately involves a definition of "and" which >> > is peculiar to digital logic (as opposed to law or common english). > > On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 11:16:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Wha? An appropriate copyright notice is along the lines of "Copyright >> (c) 1984-2004 Richard Stallman," as might plausibly appear on much GNU >> software. It imposes no licensing restrictions. >> >> Where do you see a licensing restriction from that? > > If there is no distribution or publishing going on -- if you are writing > the additional code which is being incorporated into the program -- > there is no problem. You have full rights to everything you write and > you're giving everyone who has a copy (yourself) all the rights the GPL > demands (for example, you have the right to give all others GPLed rights > to this work).
This conflicts with what you've been saying for the past week or so -- you've been asserting that I can't combine gcc and metafont, or Emacs and OpenSSL, without violating the GPL. Now you're changing your story. > Where there is distribution going on -- which is a fairly typical case -- > then there is a problem. You have to keep the copyright notices intact, > and if those copyright notices don't include a right to the work as a > whole then you have something which doesn't satisfy the terms of the GPL. "Don't include a right to the work as a whole"? Don't include what right to the work as a whole? This makes no sense. I've snipped the rest of your message because I couldn't make sense of it either. I'm not sure that having a conversation with you is productive: the shifting arguments and consistent oversnippage make it too difficult to read a coherent point from you. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
