Re: Font license recommendation

[Jeff Licquia <licquia@debian.org>]

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 17:24, Lars Hellström wrote:
> It odd to see such a conviction that "this is aggregation, which is
> harmless" here on this list, considering that it was recently claimed that
> a tarball (!) must be considered to be single work until proof of the
> contrary has been obtained, without any objections from the regulars. Can
> anyone think of any use other than aggregation for a tarball? But perhaps
> there are double standards at work ...

I argued that a tarball must be considered a derived work, but I was
arguing in reference to the LPPL, not the GPL.  The draft of the LPPL
under discussion at that point had no "mere aggregation" clause.

There is no question that a tarball is a derived work of the files
contained within it.  The GPL, however, allows that its conditions
concerning derived works need not hold to "mere aggregations", which
allows the kinds of discussions we're having here.  The LPPL does not
allow these kinds of discussions, however, because it lacks a similar
clause.