[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora Freedom and linux-libre



On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 19:26 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 17:13 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> Do do have an exact definition of what is not permitted? 
> > 
> > I pasted a precise definition of 'collective work' already, didn't I?
> 
> That is unrelated to the question.

No, it is the answer to your question. You asked what is not permitted.

What's not permitted is distribution of a collective work including the
GPL'd Program, where the other independent and separate parts of that
work are not also available under the terms of the GPL.

> > It is a work in which a number of separate and independent works are
> > assembled into one work.
> > 
> > The very definition of 'collective work' is that it is an aggregation of
> > other independent and separate works.
> 
> And aggregations are explicitly permitted which makes that discussion 
> irrelevant.

Oh dear, you're back to that again. I thought we'd dealt with that, but
we seem to be going round in circles. I'll try again, one last time:

All collective work is aggregation.

The GPL explicitly states that it covers collective work.

The GPL explicitly talks about extending the permissions of the GPL to
works which are independent and separate works in themselves, when those
works are included in a collective work.

Thus, it is not credible to believe that the 'mere aggregation on a
volume of a storage or distribution medium' exception is intended to
cover _all_ aggregation. That would mean that the GPL is just setting up
all these conditions, only to immediately turn round and say "oh,
actually I didn't really mean it" in the next paragraph.

If you're willing to make that claim in public then I don't really know
why I'm bothering to talk to you. Do you have no shame?

> > In order to create a collective work, you need the permission of the
> > copyright-holders of each of the constituent parts. If any _one_ of them
> > denies you that permission, then you may not distribute that collective
> > work.
> 
> And this part applies equally to every line of code and data.  Having 
> source or not doesn't change the requirement for permission to 
> distribute - or give anyone more or less reason to question whether that 
> permission has been given.
> 
> > As you know, the GPL makes an exception for 'mere aggregation on a
> > volume of a storage or distribution medium'. There is some scope for
> > debate on precisely what is covered by that exception, but not a huge
> > amount.
> 
> So the relevant discussion should be about whether there is a person 
> that can identify the separate parts.

No, that's another complete non-sequitur from you. Where on earth did
_that_ idea come from? 

If you can identify the separate short stories in an anthology, do you
think that somehow means that it isn't a collective work?

Actually, don't bother to answer that. Because I'm sure you'll just come
back with another complete non-sequitur rather than a real answer.

Let's just give up, eh?

-- 
dwmw2


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]