"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:02:52 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] >> Why are copies OK, and derivative works not? I see GPL 2b talking >> about any work that in whole or in part contains the Program. >> Eclipse+Kaffe contains Kaffe, GPL 2 then exempts mere aggregation -- >> which this is not. It also exempts separate sections *when >> distributed separately* -- and explicitly covers them when the Program >> is distributed as a whole. > > GPL section 2 is all about "works based on the Program", read in the > context of copyright law. Later in that section, it says that "the > intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of > derivative or collective works based on the Program." Eclipse+Kaffe > isn't a "work based on the Program" because it isn't copyrightable as > a derivative or collective work. In other words, you can't combine > Eclipse and Kaffe, by running Eclipse on Kaffe, and then sue me for > copyright infringement for doing the same.
It's very clear that GPL 2 refers to "any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof". > The "mere aggregation ... on a volume of storage or distribution > medium" bit may clarify the contract writer's intent to some degree, > but it doesn't automatically make other ways of combining two works > copyrightable. To get at the cases the FSF is shooting for, they > would have to use terms of art instead of "derivative or collective > works", and would have to insert far more draconian provisions to > create an action for breach of contract when GPL and non-GPL works are > combined. They did: the word is "copy". > The question "does linking create a derivative work" won't really be > settled in the US unless and until a new case arises, is adjudicated > in a court of fact, is appealed, and is properly analyzed with > reference to precedent by a circuit court. I think (IANAL) that the > outcome is quite predictable in light of precedents I have cited from > several circuits. Ultimately, linking against the public interface to > a published library doesn't detract from the rights in authorship that > copyright law was created to protect, and US appellate courts are > surprisingly good at sticking to the purpose of copyright in the face > of legal and technical contortions that attempt to leverage a > copyright monopoly beyond its legitimate bounds. But distributing copies of that library does infringe the intended rights of a copyright holder. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
