Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Les Mikesell]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> I wasn't going to argue with Les any more, but since he's reverted to
> 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_
> permitted.

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.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com