Re: gens License Check - Non-free
@ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
>compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
>aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single work.
>If I publish an anthology of short stories, that's a compilation.
>If one of them is written to be a prequel or sequel to another,
>then it is a derived work of that other. If they *all* have that
>relation to one another, I'm publishing what's probably a joint
This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
>>First, compilation != derivative work, AFAIK.
>Yes, not all compilations are derivative works. Some are. If you
>want to press the claim that most software is compilations, that's
>fine -- we just end up talking about derivative works of
>compilations instead of derivative works of simple original works
>in a lot of cases.
No. Compilations/anthologies are NOT derivative works OF THE PARTS.
All compilations/anthologies are derivative works OF EARLIER
EDITIONS OF THE SAME ANTHOLOGIES. Thus, Linux-2.6.7 is a derivative
work of Linux-2.6.6, but is *not* a derivative work of the
kernel/drivers/usb/unusual_devs.h (whatever the real name) that is
included there. It's an anthology work. The work to make the
anthology is select/organize/dispose its contents, and its contents
are *separate* works.
>>>>Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
YES! Yes! Being derivative has a very fixed meaning: begin the
result of some transformation.
>>>And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF
>>>objects -- no matter how tricky the instructions are about who
>>>does the combination.
>>It is to be expected that the FSF argues for as broad an
>>intepretitation of the GPL as they can without breaking out
As I said, I don't take the "do not link" GPL disposition at face
value. The intelligent thing to do is to follow Linus' lead and
regard derivative works when treating the GPL.