A Linux distribution is a mere aggregation according to FSF legal.
From: Richard Steiner (rsteiner_at_visi.com)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Wes Newell: "Re: Is EVERYBODY Flatfish?"
- Previous message: Wayne: "Re: Crux (Linux) -- CD resource?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 03:20:58 -0500
To Bill Unruh and other interested parties:
I've finally received a response to the series of questions I posted to
the Free Software Foundation's legal people at licensing@fsf.org, and I
have been given formal permission to post the e-mail in question here
on USENET. Maybe this will spur some discussion.
I've included the headers to provide some context/validation.
---CUT---
Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: rsteiner@shell.visi.com
Delivered-To: rsteiner@shell.visi.com
Received: from psmtp.com (exprod6mx74.postini.com [12.158.36.58])
by baal.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BCD116524D
for <rsteiner@shell.visi.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:17:51 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from source ([208.42.156.104]) by exprod6mx74.postini.com ([12.158.35.251]) with SMTP;
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:17:51 PDT
Received: by bodb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix)
id DB3E75947; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:17:50 -0500 (CDT)
Delivered-To: rsteiner@visi.com
Received: from psmtp.com (exprod6mx114.postini.com [12.158.36.106])
by bodb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A0755057
for <rsteiner@visi.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:17:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from source ([199.232.76.167]) by exprod6mx114.postini.com ([12.158.35.251]) with SMTP;
Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:17:50 PDT
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1BvM3A-0006Tq-Pn
for rsteiner@visi.com; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:19:48 -0400
Subject: [gnu.org #194177] Re: Question about status of a "Linux distribution"...
From: "novalis@fsf.org via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: licensing@fsf.org
In-Reply-To: <rt-194177@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.0.8-194177-645179.15.304751830215@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #194177
Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: novalis@fsf.org
To: rsteiner@visi.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <www-data@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:19:48 -0400
X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:100.0000 C:65.2823 )
X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:2.0000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m C
X-pstn-addresses: from <licensing@fsf.org> [2717/99]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=6 tests= version=2.0
X-UIDL: 1cf098027a248d1c9630c93fa618da84
Status: RO
X-Newsgroups: list.mine
Hi Richard,
Thanks for writing!
> Is a typical Linux distribution such as Red Hat or SuSE considered to
> be a "mere aggregation" w.r.t. GPL licensing or a "system"...?
Linux distributions are mere aggregrations of various pieces of Free
Software and, in some cases, proprietary software.
> More directly, if a distribution of Linux contains GPL'd components, must
> that entire distribution be placed under the GPL, or can the dissemination
> of the distribution as a whole be restricted via another license?
Only the portions of the distribution that form derivative works with
GPL'd components must be GPL'd.
However, the work as a whole cannot be licensed under another license,
nor can the terms and conditions of the GPL be restricted by another
license.
> This topic has come up on multiple occasions on USENET and your FAQ does
> not seem to address the issue. It might be worth creating a new question
> in the FAQ to address this case. Or not. :-)
Our FAQ does address this:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
If you think this isn't clear, can you suggest a clarification?
[sig delimited removed by RCS]
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
---UNCUT---
and the second follow-up note with responses:
---CUT---
Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
X-Original-To: rsteiner@shell.visi.com
Delivered-To: rsteiner@shell.visi.com
Received: from psmtp.com (exprod6mx23.postini.com [12.158.35.163])
by baal.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 43E7065255
for <rsteiner@shell.visi.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:18:49 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from source ([208.42.156.104]) by exprod6mx23.postini.com ([12.158.35.251]) with SMTP;
Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:18:48 PDT
Received: by bodb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix)
id 540C14A32; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:18:48 -0500 (CDT)
Delivered-To: rsteiner@visi.com
Received: from psmtp.com (exprod6mx115.postini.com [12.158.36.107])
by bodb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A0E1F4A51
for <rsteiner@visi.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:18:47 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from source ([199.232.76.167]) by exprod6mx115.postini.com ([12.158.35.251]) with SMTP;
Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:18:47 PDT
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1Bvhbf-0000wQ-Fg
for rsteiner@visi.com; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:20:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #194177] Re: Question about status of a "Linux distribution"...
From: "novalis@fsf.org via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: licensing@fsf.org
In-Reply-To: <rt-194177@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.0.8-194177-645389.18.5625714642284@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #194177
Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: novalis@fsf.org
To: rsteiner@visi.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Sender: www-data <www-data@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:20:51 -0400
X-pstn-levels: (S:99.90000/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:100.0000 C:87.0944 )
X-pstn-settings: 3 (1.0000:1.0000) s gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
X-pstn-addresses: from <licensing@fsf.org> [2738/100]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=6 tests= version=2.0
X-UIDL: 19afc0f3936a09046e8a9aa6be776fa1
Status: U
X-Newsgroups: list.mine
On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 03:37, Richard Steiner via RT wrote:
> Here in list.mine,
> "novalis@fsf.org via RT" <licensing@fsf.org> spake unto me, saying:
>
> >Hi Richard,
> >
> >Thanks for writing!
>
> Thank you for responding to my questions relatively quickly, for
> providing a very clear answer, and for humoring a curious programmer
> like myself. :-)
>
> May I have your permission (or the FSF's permission if required) to
> copy the entire e-mail that you sent to me to a few of the Linux groups
> on USENET so people can see both my questions and your answers?
Yes.
> >> Is a typical Linux distribution such as Red Hat or SuSE considered to be a
> >> "mere aggregation" w.r.t. GPL licensing or a "system"...?
> >
> >Linux distributions are mere aggregrations of various pieces of Free
> >Software and, in some cases, proprietary software.
>
> I think the above statement would be a very good one to put in the FAQ
> somewhere, perhaps in the area defining "mere aggregations."
> >> More directly, if a distribution of Linux contains GPL'd components, must
> >> that entire distribution be placed under the GPL, or can the dissemination
> >> of the distribution as a whole be restricted via another license?
> >
> >Only the portions of the distribution that form derivative works with
> >GPL'd components must be GPL'd.
>
> Okay.
>
> >However, the work as a whole cannot be licensed under another license,
> >nor can the terms and conditions of the GPL be restricted by another
> >license.
>
> The above does help to clarify things. In other words:
>
> (1) the restrictions that the creator of a distribution places on their
> product actually arise because SOME of the specific elements which form
> that aggregation are restricted, not because THE ENTIRE WORK they have
> created is so restricted.
Well, the whole thing isn't one "work" under copyright law, but if you
s/WORK/distribution/, that's right.
> (2) the restrictions placed on an aggregation (such as a distribution)
> because of the presence of one of more restricted elements would apply
> only to those elements which are explicitly restricted and not to any
> of the other elements contained in the aggregation.
Right.
> Thus:
>
> (3) If one removes the restricted elements from the distribution, the
> remainder of the distribution can still be freely distributed.
>
> Is that correct?
Yes.
> >> This topic has come up on multiple occasions on USENET and your FAQ does
> >> not seem to address the issue. It might be worth creating a new question
> >> in the FAQ to address this case. Or not. :-)
> >
> >Our FAQ does address this:
> >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
>
> I believe that it does given my own interpretation of the text at the
> above link, but it doesn't appear to explicitly state that something
> like a Linux distribution would be considered such.
OK, I'll open an internal ticket on this.
[sig delimited removed by RCS]
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
---UNCUT---
-- -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment. See web site above for resume/CV and background.
- Next message: Wes Newell: "Re: Is EVERYBODY Flatfish?"
- Previous message: Wayne: "Re: Crux (Linux) -- CD resource?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
