Al Foxone scripsit: > I doubt that "Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement" is > 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that > combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be > full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again > according to you). How come that this is possible?
See GPLv2 section 2, the penultimate paragraph: # [M]ere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the # Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage # or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope # of this License. The corresponding paragraph of the GPLv3 is the final one of Section 5: # A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent # works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, # and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, # in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an # “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not # used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users # beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work # in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other # parts of the aggregate. -- John Cowan [email protected] I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, LOTR:FOTR _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
