> OK, so I thought the GPL distinguished between the two - that > having a GPL program (I'm not thinking of the kernel here or > other things reasonably determined to be part of an > "operating system", an allowance the GPL > makes) on the same CD as non-GPL bits, in a situation such as > a Red Hat Linux CD, was OK because it was "mere aggregation", > which the GPL explicitly allows, and not a "collective work", > which the GPL states > *would* be under the GPL. Maybe "mere aggregation" has no > meaning w/r/t copyright law, but am I mistaken in thinking > the GPL makes the distinction?
I don't understand these subtle distinctions people are reading into the GPL. Section 2 of the GPL grants permission to "modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it." In that context, I have never understood the reference within that section to "the right to control the distribution of ... collective works based on the Program." A collective work is defined clearly in copyright law and is different from a modified (or derivative) work. One does not modify a work in the course of creating a collective work. If one merely copies the original work unchanged, that falls under section 1 of the GPL, not section 2. Those words in section 2 dealing with "mere aggregation" seem out of place. I'm even more confused about the words "work based on the Program," but I've addressed that before and won't repeat it now. /Larry -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3