David Kastrup wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > David Kastrup wrote: > >> > >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > >> > [...] > >> >> holders. Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you? > >> > > >> > Linux is a compilation according to copyright law. > >> > >> Depends on what you call "Linux". A typical GNU/Linux distribution > >> certainly is (Alfred's opinion notwithstanding). The kernel alone, > >> however, is rather a composite work derived and authored by several > >> parties. Its components are no longer independent bodies of work. > > > > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate and > > independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are even > > under different licenses. > > Does not make them independent. For that reason, no GPL-incompatible > parts are admitted into the kernel.
GPL-(in)compatiblity is a fiction. Derivative works fall under the GPL and only the GPL. And licensing terms for non-derivative works included in a compilation along with GPL'd works are totally irrelevant. Mere aggregation. Please bare in your mind that <quote> In fact, the GPL itself rejects any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. </quote> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
