Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932593AbWLSBgA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:36:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932636AbWLSBgA (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:36:00 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:3206 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932593AbWLSBf7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:35:59 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPL only modules Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:35:23 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:38:32 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:38:33 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1927 Lines: 46 > For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere > aggregation" paragraph kicks in. > > If the output is not an aggregate, which is quite likely to be > the case for dynamic linking, and quite possibly also for many static > linking cases, then the "mere aggregation" paragraph of clause 2 does > not kick in. > > If the output is indeed an aggregate, as it may quite likely be in the > case of static linking, then the "mere aggregation" considerations of > clause 2 may kick in and enable the 'anything else' to not be brought > under the scope of the license. You still need permission to > distribute the whole. The GPL asserts its non-interference with your > ability to distribute the separate portion separately, under whatever > license you can, as long as it's not a derived work from the GPL > portion. No! It makes no difference whether the "mere aggregation" paragraph kicks in because the "mere aggregation" paragraph is *explaining* the *law*. What matters is what the law actually *says*. We are talking about what works are within the GPL's scope. The text of the GPL does not matter because the GPL does not set its own scope, copyright law does. The GPL could say that if you ever see the source code to a GPL'd work, every work you ever write must be placed under the GPL. But that wouldn't make it true, because that would be a requirement outside the GPL's scope. We are talking about works are inside the GPL's legal scope, and in that case, nothing the GPL says can enlarge the scope. 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/