On Fri, Dec 17, 1999 at 10:20:15AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote:
> This bothers me; it seems to overlook the fact that a work that "in part
> contains or is derived..." will as a rule not as a whole be copyright of any
> one person, and therefore cannot as a whole have any one licence attached to
> it. [...]
Of course it can, if all the copyright holders agree on a single license.
In this case, if they don't, the copyright holder of the GPL portion
specifically says they can't combine that portion as part of the whole.
> [...] the question becomes important what constitutes a
> "work". If one considers anything distributed or published as a coherent
> ensemble, such as a Debian distribution, to be a work, then anyone can see
> that one get into serious trouble!
``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.''
...is what the GPL says about this. The DFSG has similar things to say.
HTH.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpSt3cgdKFy8.pgp
Description: PGP signature