John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: > I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the > compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection > (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of > copyright.
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release" within a single package, and not "big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses". Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or deviating from the usual or expected". :) -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
