Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
>> whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
>> believe it goes back to the argument whether the "mere aggregation"
>> clause applies.
>
> Here's the sentence which uses the phrase "mere aggregation":
>
> 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 think this is pretty clear.
You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
Remember that the GPL -- and this list -- have taken a VERY broad view
of what "Program" means in the context of the GPL, and interpret it to
include much more than just an executable file.
Linus seems to think the "mere aggregation" reading applies to
firmware[1]. At least in 2001, an anti-firmware person claimed Alan
Cox thought it applied; a more recent posting[2] by Alan is ambiguous:
rather than cite specific reasons, he defers to anonymous authority.
[1]- http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0404.3/1307.html
[2]- http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0305.0/1267.html
Michael
Reply to: