On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As written, the "mere aggregation" clause, if it has any legal > significance at all, applies only to Section 2.
Section 2 is the section which grants permission to distribute copies of the program which are not verbatim, and which places requirements on those cases. It's section 2 which defines the source code requirements for the program. You already have permission to distribute unmodified copies of the program, without the section 2 requirements. > The phrase "work based on the Program" is defined in Section 0; and > even if you want to bend over backwards to extend the "mere aggregation" > clause to Section 3 (since it references Section 2 several times), > there's no way you can apply it to Section 6. Section 3 requires distribution of the source for the binary. Section 2 defines what that source code is. It's pretty clear in Section 2 that the mere aggregation clause means that works which are "merely aggregated" have no source code requirement. So there is no "bend over backwards involved" for section 3. And section 6 only places requirements on the Program. Section 6's requirements come into play during distribution of works based on the program, but those requirements do not extend to works based on the program. As no other sections impose a source code requirement, Section 6 doesn't seem to be a problem. You have permission to distribute the program. You're complying with the source code requirements as defined by section 2. If you have a significant example, I'm interested in hearing about it. > So as far as Section 6 is concerned, you're going to have to find a > definition of "work based on the Program" in Section 0; and if you > want to ignore grammar and common law principle to argue that the > legal meaning of "derivative work" is irrelevant, you're going to > have to argue for the other noun phrase in that sentence. That > phrase is: "a work containing the Program or a portion of it, > either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another > language". I'm saying that if you've put the proper notices on the Program that you've satisfied the section 0 requirements. You seem to be trying to imply that you have not? > This would mean that, if the Debian CD set (indisputably a > copyrightable work) is distributable at all (which requires Section > 6's extension of terms from the original licensor to the recipient), > it is distributable solely under the terms of the GPL. But section 0 does not require that other copyright notices be removed. You could have figured this out by reading section 6, but apparently that's a problem, so I'll say this again: Section 6 requirements are only on the Program -- not on works based on the program. Section 6 comes into play during the distribution of works based on the program, but its requirements are only on the Program itself. > In this reading, no one who receives a Debian release in the form of > a CD set can use the Debian packages on it under any terms other > than the GPL, even if they are labeled MIT/X11, BSD, etc -- not unless > they can document having received them separately, verbatim (not just the > upstream bits), via an audit trail not colored by the GPL at any > stage. And since Debian main certainly contains works that are > DFSG-free but not GPL-compatible (OpenSSL is on CD #1 even, right?), > it would not be distributable at all under this interpretation. You're making that up. Those other bits are not the Program. > Oh, you can believe personally that you want to read the GPL as > internally consistent and as having the implications that the FSF FAQ > says it does, and read between the lines accordingly. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe that the GPL is internally consistent. I'm withholding opinion on the FAQ, because I've not taken the time to study it in any depth. You've yet to present any reason for me to change my mind on this issue. > And you can argue that Debian acted on that belief in policing > shared-library dependency relationships for GPL compatibility while > bundling packages labeled with various different licenses, > some non-GPL-compatible, into one CD image. I'm not sure what your point is, here. > But you aren't going to have much success, I think, arguing that > a _licensee_ is obliged to cut-and-paste text around mentally > in order to backport some other meaning to Section 0 and thus > to every usage of "work based on the Program". Not a problem. I'm happy to avoid making this straw-man argument. And, on that note, I think it's time to start trimming away some of this post... > But yes, the "mere aggregation" clause in Section 2 is a no-op under > the "W = E" definition of "work based on the Program", which it is > clear to me (if not to others) is the unique legally valid way to read > Section 0. I've already stated that I believe this reasoning is without legal merit. So I'll merely remind you that you've yet to present any significant examples where this supposed legal reasoning comes into play. -- Raul
