On Friday 15 June 2007 09:12:43 David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a > > > storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you > > > distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_ > > > apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections which are independent and > > > separate works in their own right, but which must be licensed under > > > the GPL when they're distributed as part of a larger whole. > > > > > > I don't see how we could hold the view that _even_ linking is 'mere > > > aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium', without > > > conveniently either ignoring entire paragraphs of the GPL or declaring > > > them to be entirely meaningless. > > > > as long as it's not distributed in one collective work, where is the > > problem? > > As long as it's not distributed "as part of a whole which is a work > based on the Program", there's no problem.
Agreed. > You seem to be suggesting that even linking the Program together with > other stuff doesn't create a 'work based on the Program'. You seem claim > it's "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium". > Am I understanding you correctly? Yes, you are. > Is there _anything_ which you admit would actually constitute a 'work > based on the Program', when that work wouldn't have been be a derived > work anyway? Or do you claim that those whole paragraphs of the GPL are > just meaningless drivel, when they explicitly make reference to applying > the GPL to works which would _normally_ be 'considered independent and > separate works in themselves'? Nope. In fact, "work based on the program" is so unclear that it means that if I wrote a book about the creation of the Linux Kernel that is entirely original - containing nothing that is copyright someone else - I would have to release it under the GPL simply because it is a "work based on the program". Is it okay to make that demand? I don't think so. But that is *exactly* what it means. And it is "the GPL applying itself to works which would normally be considered independent and separate works in themselves". DRH > If your interpretation of the GPL means that those paragraphs don't make > any sense at all, then I feel your interpretation may be suspect. -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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/
