From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: GPL V3 and Linux - Dead Copyright Holders
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 13:07:38 -0800
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKGECCJPAB.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <200602050358.49454.luke@dashjr.org>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1363
Lines: 32


> The LGPL deals with only derivative works. The GPL also deals with mere
> *linking*. If glibc were GPL'd, it would be illegal to make an OS
> based on it
> with a single C program incompatible with the GPL.

	The GPL also only deals with derivative works. If linking does not create a
derivative work, then the GPL cannot affect it. The GPL cannot define its
own scope, only copyright law does that. GPL section zero states this, but
even if it didn't it would still be true.

	The GPL could say that it affected every work every created by any human
being. It could say that it affected a work created by any person who ever
used a GPL'd work. But these things would have no force because copyright
law provides no such mechanism.

	The only way the GPL can control work Y because it affects work Z is
because Y is a derivative work of work Z. If it's not, then the works are
legally unrelated, and no matter what the GPL says, it can't affect work Y.

	If work Z is a "mere aggregate" containin all or part of work Y, then the
GPL would still apply to work Y, but not to any part of work Z not from work
Y.

	DS


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/