Re: module license taints kernel.

On Nov 16, 3:48 pm, Bob Tennent <B...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

You can have it either of two ways:

1) It's an aggregate, and the GPL does not require you to distribute
the source code of the other works aggregated with the covered work.

2) It's perhaps not an aggregate, and we have to decide if the GPL is
in scope or not. Check copyright law, you will find no section that
reserves to the copyright holder the right to control the distribution
of works that are non-creatively derived from lawful copies.

Neither way permits the GPL to cover works that are aggregated non-
creatively.

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.

You have completely missed my point. If the question is whether the
GPL *applies*, how the GPL defines things doesn't matter. The GPL does
not get to set its own scope. I am saying the GPL does not *apply* to
the work because the work is outside of the GPL's scope as defined by
copyright law.

> 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.

These are interesting intuitions about how computers work, but have no
effect whatsoever on copyright law. You will find anything about
"larger programs" or linking in copyright law.

Legally, only three things matter:

1) Does the combination contain protectable components from the work?

2) Is the combination mechanical or creative?

3) Does the combination fall into one of the narrow exceptions (such
as translation) specifically defined by copyright law.

This is all that matters when you're trying to decide if the GPL can
affect a work or not. The GPL can say what it *does* to a work, but
not whether it *applies* to a work.

None of these things differ between a linker and a tar+gzip. Both, for
copyright purposes, simply produce the input works. (Possibly with
protectable elements from the linker or archiver.) They are legally
mere aggregators, no different from putting two DVDs in the same box.

DS
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: GPL only modules
    ... defined in the GPL; is it defined in US law?). ... aggregate, but that doesn't matter. ... then the "mere aggregation" paragraph of clause 2 does ... as long as it's not a derived work from the GPL ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... that it differs from what is conventional in 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 ... The GPL cannot set its own scope. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • 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)