Re: Licensing Problems with Debian Packages (Was Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation)

[Andreas Pour <pour@mieterra.com>]

Raul Miller wrote:
> 
> > > Let me ask you a "straightforward" question: if you dissolve sugar in
> > > water, can you make the sugar boil?
> > >
> > > [Seems to me that while you can make the sugar water boil, the sugar
> > > itself does not.  There might be some rather exceptional conditions
> > > where you could make sugar boil, but they have very little to do with
> > > the conditions where sugar water boils.]
> > >
> > > Similarly, the program, which includes the library, has to be license
> > > under the GPL while the library -- considered as an entity unto itself --
> > > does not.
> > >
> > > If this doesn't make sense to you then I'd say that your question is,
> > > in fact, not at all straightforward.
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2000 at 05:31:19PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> > I have concluded that you don't understand the relevant principles of
> > copyright law.
> 
> Please be specific.  Which principles are you refering to?
> 
> What is specific point of law on which we disagree?
> 

The part where you stated:

> So: the complete source code has to be licensed under the GPL, but
> some of the individual elements of it do not.

Also, from various statements I can't bother to cull
together, I don't think you understand what a copyright in a
collective work consists of, or what it applies to and what
it does not apply to.

Ciao,

Andreas