Re: Do I have to release the patch for a GPL software under GPL?

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > I don't care what you say. Thanks to Wallace, the GPL drafter is on
>> >> > record: <quote> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic
>> >> > aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one
>> >> > program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another
>> >> > program
>> >>
>> >> "together with" does not describe the relationship of Siamese twins.
>> >
>> > And what's the relevance of that remark? Under Berne Convention
>> > software is protected as literary works. The mechanism of linking
>> > is irrelevant.
>> 
>> Except that it isn't because you don't link unrelated pieces of
>> software (well, you can, but that is just aggregating them in one
>> library).  They have to interface.
>
> So what? By that standard, a "GPL incompatible" (whatever that
> means) email program would violate the copyright law if it
> downloaded or send mail from/to a GPL'd mail server.

Uh, no.  Because they communicate through a standardized interface not
particular to those programs.

If I pack a statue in a standard rectangular box, I can sell that box
on Ebay afterwards without problems.

If I pack a statue in expanding molding foam, I can't sell the molds
afterwards on Ebay without problems.

> That may well be true in the GNU Republic, but only in the GNU
> Republic.

Which happens to be pretty much every civilized country outside of
Terekhov-lala-land.  But I am being redundant.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum