On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:20:39PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > >It is not "mere aggregation", for the same reason that a bug in a > >library that makes it unusable by applications is a grave, not a > >critical, bug: one piece of software is not "unrelated" to another if > >the former depends on the latter. > Ah, I get what I was missing earlier... so you're claiming that there's > a legal status for a combination C of A and B, which does *not* make C a > derived work derived from work B, but where C is also not a mere > aggregation of work A with work B. > I don't think there is. I could be wrong, of course. IANAL. I'm sorry -- IANAL either, and I was not aware that "mere aggregation" was a legal term at all. I'm discussing the concepts, as present in the DFSG and the GPL, and explaining why I believe that, if the GPL places requirements on applications that use GPL libs, this doesn't violate DFSG#9. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpnkoACyUN1R.pgp
Description: PGP signature