Re: Eclipse 3.0 Running ILLEGALY on Kaffe
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:53:03PM -0500, Walter Landry wrote:
>
> > But I have only seen people talk about derivative works, and the GPL
> > clearly goes beyond just derived works.
>
> [1] I don't think this phrase "derivative works" means what you think
> it means.
>
> [2] Whether or not Eclipse + Kaffe is a derivative work of Kaffe is not
> the issue, in my opinion.
>
> In other words: derivative works include "mere aggregation".
As a point of law, derivative works are not a superset of "mere
aggregation" in the US, and I suspect not in other jursidictions. 17
USC 101 requires that a derivative work be "recast, transformed, or
adapted" from the original; the GPL's "mere aggregation" would be some
subset of compilations, possibly the same subset as collective works.
The US Code's distinction between collective works and compilations
may be useful for deciding how to interpret the GPL:
A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole.
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling
of preexisting materials or of data that are selected,
coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as
a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term
"compilation" includes collective works.
The key difference seems to be that the components of a collective
work must be "separate and independent works in themselves," but that
restriction is lifted in the broader term "compilation." (The "such
as a periodical issue" is illustrative, not limiting.)
Making that distinction does not itself resolve the "Kaffe + Eclipse"
question, but it is pretty close to how I would distinguish "mere
aggregation" from other combinations of software.
Michael Poole
Reply to: