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

Ingo Molnar
2007-06-15T12:59:16Z

* 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? A driver could be argued to be part of a mere compilation of
works (not part of a collective work), or just two separate works. But
... this is a much greyer area than the key stuff.

> Of course, that doesn't mean that a court _wouldn't_ do that. Given
> enough money, I'm sure you could get US court to declare that the
> world is flat. But it doesn't seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, to
> me. Or a likely outcome.

i'm not that cynical about US courts.

Ingo