On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you "compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you create a work that "adapts" or "recasts" (or more generally "derives from") them, you're in another area of law.
As I said, you're having a purely semantic argument. Regardless of what you *call* it, shoving two works together does not excuse you from the conditions of the license on one of those works, *when you make a copy*. And that's the GPL in a nutshell, if you want to copy the work, you need a license, if you want a license, you must abide the conditions, and one of the conditions is that you may not combine it with a work that is under an incompatible license unless it is mere aggregation. Of course, now you're going to argue that there's no such thing as an "incompatible license" or "mere aggregation" and that these are just words that were made up for the GPL, so they can be ignored.. another pointless semantic argument because it doesn't change the very simple fact that you don't have any rights to copy the work unless you have a license and you don't have a license if you fail to abide the conditions of the license. Trent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
