| |||||||||||||
derived work vs mere aggregationderived work vs mere aggregationPosted Dec 11, 2003 7:50 UTC (Thu) by pjm (subscriber, #2080)In reply to: derived work vs mere aggregation by pjm Parent article: Interview: Dan Ravicher on derived works I retract the claim "yet I gather it isn't usually considered a derivative work of either". This perception may well be merely due to the "mere aggregation" exception in the GNU GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
derived work vs mere aggregation Posted Dec 11, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] This brings up a point I haven't seen addressed: Larry Rosen of the OSI wrote a new license, the Open Software License, that claims to be a copyleft license that addresses perceived flaws in the GPL. Like the GPL, it requires derivative works to be licensed under the same terms. Unlike the GPL, it has no "mere aggregation" exception. It would appear that if the Linux kernel were licensed under the GPL, all programs distributed on a CD-ROM along with the Linux kernel would need to be either under the OSL or a compatible but more permissive license, since the CD-ROM is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. That makes the OSL much more "viral" than the GPL.
derived work vs mere aggregation Posted Dec 12, 2003 10:09 UTC (Fri) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] At the moment, the OSL is considered nonfree by at least Debian (I don't know if the FSF has an opinion on it). Clause 5 is the sticking point, but clause 9 isn't too popular either.
|
|||||||||||||