Re: module license taints kernel.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:51:08 -0800 (PST), David Schwartz wrote:
On Nov 15, 4:51 pm, Bob Tennent <B...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's a definition taken from the GPL. By "wrong" I presume you mean
that it differs from what is conventional in copyright law. I don't
think it's improper to re-define a conventional term for some specific
purpose. The GPL grants rights that are otherwise denied by copyright
law. By my reading of the GPL, a tainted kernel is not a GPL-defined
aggregate and hence the "mere aggregate" provision of the GPL allowing
distribution doesn't apply. The issue isn't whether the tainted kernel
might be a derivative work under copyright law, but whether distribution
is allowed by the GPL.

I didn't mean the excerpt is wrong, I meant that to use the excerpt
the way you did is wrong. The GPL cannot set its own scope. Whether
the GPL's rules apply is a question of scope.

If the GPL said, "this license applies to every work every written by
anyone who has ever seen a work covered by this license", that
obviously would not mean that this was actually *true*.

Several parts of the GPL attempt to explain the scope of the GPL, but
they are not the final authority on the scope of the GPL. The GPL
cannot affect mere aggregates because of principles of copyright law.
If you buy a legal DVD copy of The Lion King, you don't need anyone's
permission to put it in the same box as a copy of The Phantom Menace.
It wouldn't matter what the licenses on the two DVDs said, that's mere
aggregation.

It's not the act of aggregation that's covered or not. It's the act of
*distributing* an aggregate that contains a GPLed work. The requirements
of the GPL on distributors do *not* apply to the non-GPled components;
that's why the "mere aggregation" clause was suggested by a previous
poster. But a kernel linked with a non-GPLed module is not an aggregate
as defined by the GPL. The GPL doesn't stop you doing it, but it doesn't
allow distribution, which is completely within its scope, or rather the
scope of the copyright owners.

Ask yourself, is a tar+gzip "mere aggregation"? Bits of one work are
removed and replaced with references to the other work.

I'd say yes; tar+gzip doesn't produce "a larger program". Linking
in a module does; very different.

Bob T.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... It's a definition taken from the GPL. ... that it differs from what is conventional in copyright law. ... aggregate and hence the "mere aggregate" provision of the GPL allowing ... distribution doesn't apply. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: Re: Big development in the GUI realm
    ... > Tim Churches wrote: ... the GPL itself specifically says that is out of scope and the GPL does not apply. ... Program' means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... Linking does not create a "work based on the program" because ... The license is just clarifying copyright law. ... The license cannot set its own scope. ... even if the GPL said "if you ever look at any source code to a ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... It's an aggregate, and the GPL does not require you to distribute ... It's perhaps not an aggregate, and we have to decide if the GPL is ... Check copyright law, you will find no section that ... allow distribution, which is completely within its scope, or rather the ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: FC4 or FC5
    ... The FSF interpretation says otherwise. ... If you think your interpretation of copyright law is better than the ... the way copyright and every other license works. ... Yes, the GPL only applies if you make a derivative work, so what? ...
    (Fedora)