From: Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@enter.net>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:58:35 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, debian developer <debiandev@gmail.com>,
       david@lang.hm, Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@netone.net.tr>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <466A3EC6.6030706@netone.net.tr> <20070615125837.GA25654@elte.hu> <1181913163.25228.507.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <1181913163.25228.507.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200706151658.35328.dhazelton@enter.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2755
Lines: 61

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 <dwmw2@infradead.org> 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 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/