Bradley Kuhn asked: > It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim > this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? > > When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted > software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose > which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the > release" within a single package, and not "big software archive, with > lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software > licenses". Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic > use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or > deviating from the usual or expected". :)
I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. Of course, the original GPL applies to the original component, and always will. /Larry -----Original Message----- From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: > I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the > compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection > (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of > copyright. It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release" within a single package, and not "big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses". Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or deviating from the usual or expected". :) -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
