On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <definition> > > > a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any > > > derivative work under copyright law > > > </definition> > > > > I disagree. You know I disagree. > > No, that was not altogether clear to me previously. That seems to > have been your argument at some times, and at others you seem to have > taken issue with my attempt to elucidate the legal meaning of > "derivative work". Now I know.
So if I disagree with you on points A and B, you consider disagreement on point B to constitute agreement on point A? That would certainly explain the length of some of these discussions. > > > This definition emphasizes that "derivative work", which is in any > > > case a phrase with a defined legal meaning, is to have its meaning > > > under copyright law in the applicable jurisdiction and _no_other_. > > > Each and every time the phrase "work[s] based on the Program" appears > > > in the text of the GPL, it means this and only this. > > > > That's an assertion. > > > > You've not presented any examples where this oh-so-important > > assertion of yours makes any difference. > > The "work" (subspecies "copyrightable collection", or "collective > work" in 17 U.S.C. 101) known as Debian sarge CD #1. You simply > cannot read C not to include this "work". Or you can, but I can't > follow you there, nor do I believe that any court of competent > jurisdiction in any Berne Convention country can. I assert that that work satsifies the terms of the GPL (unless we've done something really stupid, like include programs which mix GPLed code with non-GPLed code). The GPL's mere aggregation clause makes this easy. > > I see no basis here for assuming that the GPL is incorrect about > > what it says. > > Well, whether I'm right or not (and who's to say, outside a court of > law?), it's now well beyond the point at which the level of my > pedantry has to be insulting the reader's intelligence, so I think I'd > best drop it. No hard feelings, OK? Up to you. I am choosing to ignore your rather long and elliptical assertions about the rigidity of english grammar. However, if you want to discuss the legal issues, I'll continue that part of the discussion. Reading between the lines, I believe you're ignoring the GPL's "mere aggregation" clause. I also believe you are trying to bend the definition of "work based on the Program" to account for the treatment of that clause in the context of this license. Furthermore, you seem to think that the legal phrase "derivative work" means something less than what it means (otherwise your example of the Debian CD set wouldn't make sense within the context you've been expressing). -- Raul
