David Woodhouse wrote:
> I'm proposing that in this scenario, if d is true, b would
also be true
> if they weren't combined, so the transient combination for distribution
> is irrelevant. And if b wouldn't be true, then you are left with e.
But (b) is permitted, while (d) is explicitly not permitted. You can't
just say "oh, but if I wasn't doing (d) then I'd be doing (b), so
Let's consider (b) as 'you are carrying a knife' and (d) as 'you are
stabbing me with your knife'. And your excuse as...
"But officer, if (d) is true, then (b) would also be true if I weren't
stabbing him. So the transient combination of the knife and his abdomen
No, to whatever extent an analogy works it would be that the stabbing
occurs in both b & d scenarios and the difference is whether you carried
the knife to the scene or it was already there.
The 'transient combination' is _far_ from being irrelevant.
combination for distribution is very thing that is not permitted.
Aggregations are explicitly permitted.
You do not have permission to distribute the GPL'd Program under
conditions described in (d), although you _do_ of course have permission
to distribute it under the conditions described in (b).
You do have permission to aggregate other items. If you have anything
to quibble about here it should be about what methods of aggregation are
That's the whole point in the bit in the GPL which goes
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute those same
sections as part of a while which a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License..."
I don't really see anything there about details you have to observe to
maintain a separation. If you want to make some up, go ahead. Maybe
you can modify the compiler to do it for you.