Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Raul Miller writes:

> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing language.  When the GPL talks about the
>> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
>> GPL; see section 0.  It deals with collective (in contrast to
>> derivative) works in just two paragraphs: one exempts "mere
>> aggregation" from coverage; the other seems explanatory rather than
>> normative.  Calling that "great lengths" is a little deceptive.
>
> The GPL only uses the word "collective" in one sentence, not two:
>
>    Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
>    your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is
>    to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
>    collective works based on the Program.
>
> However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
> is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
> collective works based on the Program.

    In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the
    Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
    a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the
    other work under the scope of this License.

This sentence deals just as much with collective works, and makes
clear that "mere aggregation" is not sufficient to invoke GPL coverage
of the other work(s).  What is your point?

> So what is this "deception" you're talking about?

The deception is calling it "great lengths."  When I said the GPL
"deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what it says?).

Michael