Re: module license taints kernel.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:15:25 -0800 (PST), David Schwartz wrote:
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.

So if I take a copyrighted work, apply rot13 to it, the result can be
freely distributed? I rather doubt it.

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.

I've already decided I can't depend on *your* characterization of
copyright law. I've already stated IANAL; what about you? Frankly, I'll
trust Eben Moglen, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, who wouldn't
have allowed the statements I've quoted if the restrictions weren't
within the scope of copyright law.

Bob T.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 64-bit Linux pricing - yeepers!
    ... > distribution they are part of a derived work, ... > law cannot apply to them and the GPL cannot apply to them. ... Whether those are trademark or copyright restrictions does ... You appear to be making up copyright law out of whole cloth. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • 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: 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 ... in scope or not. ... Check copyright law, you will find no section that ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • 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: Interesting Web Site on Open Source Development
    ... that no other App can have: Being forever open to any developement, ... In addition, as I said, the GPL itself is based on copyright law, and changes in copyright law can very much affect the effectiveness of the GPL. ... In countries that have longer and tougher patents, distribution of certain GPL apps can be halted altogether. ...
    (alt.lang.asm)