🚀 go-pugleaf

Unruh wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> >Unruh wrote:
> >[...]
> >> Yes, and you have made the comparison?
> 
> >Am I claiming that "that's a derivative of GPL software appearing
> >under a BSD license"? You're suffering typical GNUish/SCOish syndrome.
> 
> ??? The AFC test is a test to see whether or not there is copyright
> protected material contained withing the package. 

No. It's about infringing the right on making a derivative work. IOW, 
RMS' own typical "Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire 
[blah blah] are permitted provided this notice is preserved" covers 
compilations (packages), but not derivatives of his (kinda literary) 
idiotic work(s). My, what a proprietor! (It's akin to GNUish "mere 
aggregation" vs GNUish "derived" ("derived" falls under the GPL... or 
else... GNUish "mere aggregation" of GNUish "derived" stuff with 
something else aside for a moment).

>                                                   Have you made the
> comparixon? If not why are you telling us to look to AFC?

Because *you* have to make a (an initial) "comparixon", not me.

regards,
alexander.