David Woodhouse wrote:
I wasn't going to argue with Les any more, but since he's
what could almost be considered a direct untruth rather than his normal
illogical and unparseable nonsense, I suppose I should point that out in
case he manages to trick anyone with it.
On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 18:34 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> if you would read the COPYING file, you'd see that there are more
> requirements for the permitted aggregations:
> "not derived from the Program"
> "reasonably considered independent and separate works".
It's somewhat misleading to refer to those as 'requirements for the
permitted aggregations', because those phrases actually form part of the
GPL's explicit description of the aggregations which are _not_
As the rest of the sentence continues to say "then this License, and its
terms, do not apply to those sections" I think you are one being
misleading here. There is some room for disagreement on the
separateness but not about whether aggregations are permitted when those
specified conditions are met.
Here's the whole thing in context since you seem to be incapable of
finding it in the thousands of COPYING files you must have:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works."
So, the only reasonable issue is whether something that originated
elsewhere with its only purpose being to drop into specific separate
pieces of hardware is 'separate', even though it is temporarily encoded
into the same file as some GPL'd material.