Re: reiser4 non-free?
Richard Stallman wrote:
> You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
> really the issue. Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
> larger combined work.
Your silly claims like "If a.o is under the GPL and talks to b.o
which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all three files, if all three
are combined" are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and
the doctrine of first sale. C'mon, give it up and stop bluffing.
You're on record:
"RMS: We have no say in what is considered a derivative work. That
is a matter of copyright law, decided by courts. When copyright
law holds that a certain thing is not a derivative of our work,
then our license for that work does not apply to it. Whatever our
licenses say, they are operative only for works that are
derivative of our code.
A license can say that we will treat a certain kind of work as if
it were not derivative, even if the courts think it is. The Lesser
GPL does this in certain cases, in effect declining to use some
of the power that the courts would give us. But we cannot tell the
courts to treat a certain kind of work as if it were derivative,
if the courts think it is not."
Or is this yet another case of "fabricated responses"? <chuckles>