Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Did you happen to notice that not every term of the GPL applies
exclusively to the isolated distribution of a "work based on the
Program"? Did you happen to notice any of the discussion about how a
court might approach the construction of the contract with regard to
authority to create and distribute distro CD's and other collective
> > > 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.
Look, I take that back -- you haven't entirely lost my respect. I
have to step back and see that your (in my view) reprehensible
misrepresentation of my arguments is happening in the context of a
debate that has gotten pretty acrimonious on both sides. It's pretty
normal, under these circumstances, for each participant to regard his
own errors as peccadillos and the other's as mortal sins.
You, at least, can claim long and honorable service on Debian's
behalf, and it's not your fault if you are (IMHO) unskilled in the
form of legal discourse that requires a solid grounding in statute and
precedent. Not to mention digesting the terminally polysyllabic style
that I seem to have in common with at least some appellate judges.
But for future reference, if you think that something I have written
leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from
distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when
I express that fear myself, as I have with respect to the "agency to
sublicense" issue. OK?