Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:37:28 -0800 (PST)
On Nov 15, 9:21 am, Bob Tennent <B...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The tainted kernel incorporating the module is surely not an aggregate:
Yes, it is.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and
which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
"aggregate" ...
I'm not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. An "aggregate"
is any combination made by automated means, as opposed to creative
means, with a few narrow exceptions specified by copyright law. (Such
as translation, since it was probably assumed at the time the law was
made that translation had to be creative.)
So compilers, linkers, and archivers make aggregates of their input
works. Human beings who combine things creatively can make new works
that are not merely aggregates of the input.
If you feed a bunch of input works into anything that cannot add
creative input, it cannot create a new work. All it can do is
aggregate the inputs. Under copyright law, it takes creative input to
create a new work, even a new derivative work.
DS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Rainer Weikusat
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- References:
- module license taints kernel.
- From: guru
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Chris Friesen
- Re: module license taints kernel.
- From: Bob Tennent
- module license taints kernel.
- Prev by Date: Re: module license taints kernel.
- Next by Date: Re: open() behavior under heavy disk load
- Previous by thread: Re: module license taints kernel.
- Next by thread: Re: module license taints kernel.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|