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

Daniel Hazelton
2007-06-15T20:58:57Z

On Friday 15 June 2007 09:12:43 David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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?

Yes, you are.

> 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'?

Nope. In fact, "work based on the program" is so unclear that it means that if
I wrote a book about the creation of the Linux Kernel that is entirely
original - containing nothing that is copyright someone else - I would have
to release it under the GPL simply because it is a "work based on the
program".

Is it okay to make that demand? I don't think so. But that is *exactly* what
it means. And it is "the GPL applying itself to works which would normally be
considered independent and separate works in themselves".

DRH

> 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.

--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.