Excellent. You have stated your position that Mepis is a "mere aggregation." I disagree.

Mepis depends materially on Linux and other GPL-ed software to present a novel distro and system interface. Therefore, in my opinion, Mepis is a new derivative work, not a mere aggregation. Even more of a new work than is the collection of maps that the USCO says is derivative.

Whether flash, jvm, and quicktime are simple add-ons and therefore not material components is less clear to me.

Again there isn't only one Mepis program, what is called a distro is not a program it's a collection of programs. GPL doesn't apply to the separate programs as it's clear put in the GNU FAQ, if you claim that mepis center, flash, java, acrobat reader are part of the program please specify what program are part of.

Again a quote from GNU GPL FAQ:
Those programs mentioned above are separate programs invoked by exec or fork -- they are more than plug-ins, therefore if GPL doesn't even apply for all plug-ins, it clearly doesn't apply for separate programs (that was the argument in this explanation: "plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them") So there you go...

I find it equally baffling why somebody would want to sell Mepis CD's and also why Mepis doesn't state explicitly that there are different trademarks (as seems to be the case) for Mepis and SimplyMepis if I got that right.
I don't really care since I wont use it anyway.What I'd like to know though is where I can d/l the source code of the programs included - being GPL compliant and all that.

We're in an infinite loop. The GPL *defines* program, as I said earlier, to be "either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law; that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it." I believe that Mepis is a derivative work under copyright law, and therefore falls under the GPL's definition of "program."

I think that this is pretty clear:
"If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them."

As for derived work, I'm not sure I understand the definition on that site especially that it doesn't say anything about software, it talks about art and literature, I'm sure you agree that computer software is neither art or literature or maps. But, as you see in the GPL FAQ using a GPL program doesn't make another progran (even if it's only a plug-in) a derived work and thus a subject to GPL.

Your quote is from the FAQ, in the specific context of plugins. Mine's from the definitions section of the GPL itself.

Since the GPL incorporates copyright law by reference, it'd be a good idea to understand it.

What applies for plug-ins applies a fortiori to separate programs. Your reference doesn't say anything about software, at least my quote was about software (you can deduce that if a plug-in doesn't have to be GPL a program even more doesn't have to be in the similar conditions).

BTW, I used "a fortiori" because you seemed inclined to use Latin quotes.

My arguments stand; further postings would serve no purpose.

Your arguments don't stand just because you say so.

Mepis CD is not a derivate work, it's a collection of GPL software and other software that have different licenses (LGPL, OSL, individual licenses, etc) and the license for a package doesn't contaminate the license of another. You are going to have big problems to convince anyone (even a judge) that Mepis CD is "one program"

If you are not a lawyer you have to have a little bit of common sense to see that, if what you claim would be true you'll never be able to put on a CD _any_ GPL software together with other type of licenses since the GPL would contaminate the other programs (notice that there's nowhere in your post about "derivative work" a way to determine which procent of a work has to be used in order to make the product a "derivative work" so if you put a small GPL software on a CD it would mean that all the CD is a derivative work according to your logic). That is not true is evident only from that fact that there are so many distros and many other products that put together GPL software and other type of software.

Anyway your argument is not good only for the simple fact that that link that you provided as argument doesn't refer to software. Software is not articles, paintings or maps.

As for individual packages that are not GPL: mepis-oscenter, flash, java, acrobat readear and others they are also not derivate of other packages and they do not interact with GPL software in such a way so they will be considered modification or improvements of GPL software (read the quote from GPL FAQ about plug-ins).

And finally, the spirit (the purpose) of GPL is to protect the GPLed code and it's modification to remain free. That remains true for the GPL software installed on the CD. It's freely available from Debian (probably fastest way to get it) and from Mepis upon request. So... where is the GPL infrigment? What is not available is the non-GPL code and that's that.

If GPL would be interpreted as you say it would be a huge disservice to Free software, few would use it and Microsoft propaganda that GPL is viral would be true.

Still - where's the source code for the included GPL programs???

Mepis should provide it when requested by users.
However, the source code is readily available at debian.org so if you are interested you can download it from there.