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

David Woodhouse
2007-06-15T12:37:18Z

On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the argument is quite strong that the linking of two independent works
> is "mere aggregation" as well. (as long as they are truly separate
> works)

You think so?

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.

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.

--
dwmw2