Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote: >> > I personally believe that even if a particular instance of object code >> > is judged to include protected expression of both/either source code's >> > copyright owner and/or compiler's copyright owner, the resulting binary >> > is merely an aggregation of multiple computer program works -- in >> > GNUspeak it is called "mere aggregation". >> This may be true. That you personally believe this, I mean. But that >> belief is mistaken. >> "Mere aggregation" means making a loose collection of separate things.
> Alan, my dictionary says that "mere aggregation" means a thing being > nothing more than an aggregation and that it has nothing to do with > "loose" vs "tight" aggregation. I'd be interested to see this dictionary which has a definition for the phrase "mere aggregation", as opposed to separate definitions for the two words. Anyhow, yes I agree that "mere aggregation" means what you just wrote. The critical thing being "NOTHING MORE" than an aggregation. If two pieces of code are linked together, this linking is a good deal more than aggregation, and thus is not "mere aggregation". The word "aggregation" appears only once in GPL2, in the following phrase: "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". Not even the most contorted lawyer could twist a single compiled binary into that definition. > Do you agree that neither "loose" nor "tight" aggregation of multiple > independent computer program works creates a derivative work under the > Copyright Act of the United States of America (don't confuse it with > unwritten Copyleft Act of the GNU Republic), Alan? I think that's fairly obvious - assuming that by "multiple" you mean "several" (I'm not sure what a "multiple program work" is. Something like Open Office, perhaps). If the works are truly independent, i.e. have no dependencies on eachother, you can't create a work deriving from them without creating such dependencies. Clearly, if you put Open Office and Firefox onto the same CD, this isn't a derivative work - it's just two things put on a medium for convenience. It's great to be able to agree with you, for once! > regards, > alexander. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss