| |||||||||||||
On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLOn the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPLPosted Oct 6, 2005 14:32 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL by dwmw2 Parent article: On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
IANAL as well, so this is, of course, speculation, but...
1) The clauses you quote about collective works include the phrase "as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program". Earlier in the license (clause 0) that phrase is defined to mean "either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law" [this definition is immediately followed by an explanatory clause that seems to say something different, making the whole thing splendidly unclear]. That seems to imply that the collective work would have to be a derivative work for the collective rule to apply.
2) There's also that aggregation clause, which immediately follows the clauses you cite and says "mere aggregation...does not bring the other work under the scope of this License", which would seem to negate the notion that bundling pieces together in a distribution medium (such as a tarball or an embedded device) would bring them under the License.
I believe the central point here is what the "work" is. The aggregation clause says that simply distributing things together does not make them part of a single work, for purposes of the GPL. However, if the pieces are part of a single work (as, for instance, code linked into the kernel), then the collective clause applies.
Again, though, IANAL.
(Log in to post comments)
On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL Posted Oct 6, 2005 15:01 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] I believe the central point here is what the "work" is. The aggregation clause says that simply distributing things together does not make them part of a single work, for purposes of the GPL. However, if the pieces are part of a single work (as, for instance, code linked into the kernel), then the collective clause applies.That is indeed the question. Certainly, when a bunch of different programs are collected onto a CD and distributed, that would clearly be "mere aggregation" -- although some Linux distributions do, interestingly, claim copyright on the whole distribution as a collective work, which is an interesting problem in itself. However, if the parts are interdependent, and each cannot usefully function without the other, it would be much harder to claim that it's "mere aggregation". The two examples I gave were cases where the individual parts were clearly part of a greater whole, rather than being related to each other only by their coincidental presence in the same location. Obviously there is no 'correct' answer until/unless it's tested in court, but I find it hard to believe that "mere aggregation" could be argued in those cases.
On the value of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL Posted Oct 6, 2005 18:18 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] IANAL, so take the following with the appropiate amount of salt... In the distribution case, you certainly can have a claim on the collection as such, even if you have no claim on the individual parts. I.e., if you gather "geek folk tales", and then publish them in book form, you can claim copyright on the book, not on each tale (presumably public domain, or GPLed by each geek).
|
|||||||||||||