Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

David Woodhouse
2007-06-15T13:13:10Z

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a
> > storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you
> > distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_
> > apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections which are independent and
> > separate works in their own right, but which must be licensed under
> > the GPL when they're distributed as part of a larger whole.
> >
> > I don't see how we could hold the view that _even_ linking is 'mere
> > aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium', without
> > conveniently either ignoring entire paragraphs of the GPL or declaring
> > them to be entirely meaningless.
>
> as long as it's not distributed in one collective work, where is the
> problem?

As long as it's not distributed "as part of a whole which is a work
based on the Program", there's no problem.

You seem to be suggesting that even linking the Program together with
other stuff doesn't create a 'work based on the Program'. You seem claim
it's "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
Am I understanding you correctly?

Is there _anything_ which you admit would actually constitute a 'work
based on the Program', when that work wouldn't have been be a derived
work anyway? Or do you claim that those whole paragraphs of the GPL are
just meaningless drivel, when they explicitly make reference to applying
the GPL to works which would _normally_ be 'considered independent and
separate works in themselves'?

If your interpretation of the GPL means that those paragraphs don't make
any sense at all, then I feel your interpretation may be suspect.

--
dwmw2