Re: Copyright lawyers analysis of Andreas Pour's Interpretation

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 07:30:08PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:

> > Okay. So GPL.3 can be applied *either* to a program *or* a work that
> > happens to be based on a program.

> If you distribute a work based on the program you must distribute it
> under the terms of the GPL, which means that it's another "Program"

You could say so. That does not change the point which is that the
source you have to distribute is the source for whatever non-source
data you distribute. Call it files, works, programs, data, it's all
the same.

> Are you one of those people who pretends that a working copy of the
> kghostview program is not being distributed?

I don't known anything about kghostview.

> I don't think that you're claiming that Moby Dick is an example of
> copyright law or legal precedents.

Sheesh. I point out that you are asking for the impossible. I cannot
give a precise reference to the page in the law where it does not say
what you claim it does. The does not say as you claim on all of its
pages, and there is no particular page where it does not say it more
than it does not say it anywhere else.

> I think that you are claiming that it's not possible to make a statement
> about what is legal or what is not based on the relevant law because
> you can't use Moby Dick in a mathematical proof about complex numbers.

Strawman.

-- 
Henning Makholm          "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
                    muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
             Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."