Re: This is the FSF's formal response Re: Distros and "Mere Aggregation".

From: Christopher Browne (cbbrowne_at_acm.org)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: 21 Oct 2004 03:20:29 GMT

The world rejoiced as unruh@string.physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:
> ptb@lab.it.uc3m.es (Peter T. Breuer) writes:
> ]> As a work in its own right is is also derivative of the contents.
>
> ]No it isn't. There is no logic asserting any such thing. It is NOT
> ]*derived from* its contents, it is a *collection* of them. Please stop
> ]this. There are valuable things to be discussed, and this nonsense is
> ]not one of them.
>
> Read the definition of derived work. Containment is part of the
> determination of "derived work" . A collection contains its parts. Thus a
> collection is derived of its parts.

If I put four books in a plastic bag, that does NOT make the plastic
bag a derived work of any of the books, nor does it make the books
into derived works of one another.

The four books sit there in a plastic bag, "merely aggregated."

But as has been said, the fact that you want to dispute what "mere
aggregation" means does not make it of any value for anyone else to
pursue the dispute. 

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html
"And don't EVER make the mistake that  you can design something better
than what you  get  from ruthless massively   parallel trial-and-error
with a feedback cycle. That's giving your intelligence _much_ too much
credit."  -- Linus Torvalds