Re: Corel's apt frontend

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Henning Makholm writes ("Re: Corel's apt frontend"):

> I have given permission for Corel (and others) to make copies of dpkg
> according to the GPL, which makes the following restriction amongst
> others:

>  2...

>      b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>      whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program

A program that calls dpkg using fork() and exec() does not contain
dpkg in whole. It does not contain dpkg in part. It is not derived
from dpkg. Thus 2(b) has not any force on said program.

> So, even if they are not derivative works in copyright law, the GPL
> can still require that they be GPL'd, if they are distributed `as part
> of a whole which is a work based on the program'.

But they aren't. Read on, the GPL proceeds to say:

| 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.

I.e. you cannot, by sheer force of will and no legal case to back it
with, make any random collection of two independent programs into a
"work" to which you can apply GPL 2(b). The collection is not a "work"
in GPL's sense, and it is certainly not a "work" in the sense of
copyright law.

-- 
Henning Makholm                  "I Gudfaders navn og sønnens og den hellige
                     ånds! Bevar os for djævelens værk og for Muhammeds, den
               forbandedes, underfundigheder! Med dig står det værre til end
           med nogen anden, thi at lytte til Muhammed er det værste af alt."