On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote:
> | What can I say? I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation.
> |But I don't think it's the only interpretation, and I'm not sure it's even
> |the interpretation intended by the authors. There's another section that
> |specifically allows distribution of GPL and non-GPL programs on the same
> |medium (Linux distributions), and that passage would be redundant if this
> |passage reads as you suggest.
>
> Listen it says
>
> if work is "containing, modifying, deriving" (CMD) of work that is GPL then
> GPL. If not, then not.
>
> (its' a mathematical if and only if)
> Ok let's loop on that for a while...
>
> Apache+Linux=aggregation, Apache is not CMD of Linux
>
> Frankly the wording is extremelly clear. GPL applies to "contained",
> "modified", or "derived" work not aggregated work and that is in the
> license....
>
> what is not clear about it?
>
I'll tell you, Marc, the word "contained" and the word "aggregated" as
far as Java software goes, is what is extreemely unclear. The OO gurus
do not even agree what the difference is between "contained" and
"aggregated".
Futhermore, I can change what I think is "contained" and what I think is
"aggregated" in a Java program in a very technical fashion. So far I
think Jon has a very salient point.
--
Nicolaus Bauman
Software Engineer
Simplexity Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
