> I'm not the one who reversed the meaning of free to mean restricted. And > the GPL is simply restrictions. Restrictions to stop abuse, removal of rights by third parties and to produce greater freedom. You could say the same of the US consitution. After all why should the president not be able to cancel elections, they interfere with his freedom to innovate foreign policy. > of works - or keeping themselves from being improved in other ways. The > FSF even claims that it is illegal to distribute components separately > that may be combined with GPL'd parts unless you apply the same > restrictions. That's like saying I can't give someone a cover for their > copyrighted book or a frame for their painting. You should also perhaps have asked for a beginners book on copyright law from Santa. Your analogies are totally broken. A frame is not a derivative work, nor is a cover (usually). The GPL likewise does not cover non-derivative works. If you take from another work whether you make a cover by printing out a photo from inside a book and colouring it in, or by using GPL code in your code you end up with a derived work and the original author has rights not too. Alan
