🚀 go-pugleaf

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:


>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, 

??? Is there some gramatical problem with that sentence.

>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).

Your passions are overriding your English.


>>                                                   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.

Why do I have to? You came up with the AFC test. The OP suggested a path of
influence, which gave a possibly suggestive link suggesting that copyright
code could be in the Nokia software.