Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:545 alt.religion.computers:1117 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me? Message-ID: <4771@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 16 Dec 89 19:37:57 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4766@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1989Dec15.034150.13574@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 19 In article <1989Dec15.034150.13574@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: > If you didn't modify getopt() then section 2 doesn't apply, right? I don't believe that to be the case. Certainly you need to read more than individual sentences out of context. > |Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its > |derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring > |the other work under the scope of these terms. > So including gnu getopt() in the same shar file doesn't entangle > you either, right? But including it in the same *binary* does. Stallman has explicitly stated this in some forum or another. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"