Re: Font license recommendation
- To: Lars Hellström <Lars.Hellstrom@math.umu.se>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Font license recommendation
- From: email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 02 Aug 2002 15:53:54 -0700
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Lars Hellström <Lars.Hellstrom@math.umu.se> writes:
> It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is
> harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that
> a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the
> contrary has been obtained, without any objections from the regulars. Can
> anyone think of any use other than aggregation for a tarball? But perhaps
> there are double standards at work ...
I don't know who said that. It depends on the facts. Some tarballs
might be combined works, and some might be mere aggregation. It
depends on the details, and what people are doing with it, and what it
really is, and not on what particular technical mechanism is in use.
> I doubt this argument could work. However if it did then it certainly would
> provide a technical solution to the (obnoxious?) GPL incompatibility
> problem: just design the linker so that it pads the executable with markup
> saying "beginning/end of material that is part of the work XXX", and then
> claim the file is an aggrevation of different works, which just happens to
> be interpreted as an executable program by the OS.
Since things like intention matter--and not just technical
mechanism--this is just FUD.