Re: GPL and linking (was: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-()
Stepping in to defend Mr. Edwards, though not his claims or
conclusions.
On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 08:34:17AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/8/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/7/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 5/7/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > ...
> > ...
> ...
>
> > > > This definition emphasizes that "derivative work", which is in any
> > > > case a phrase with a defined legal meaning, is to have its meaning
> > > > under copyright law in the applicable jurisdiction and _no_other_.
> > > > Each and every time the phrase "work[s] based on the Program" appears
> > > > in the text of the GPL, it means this and only this.
> > >
> > > That's an assertion.
> > >
> > > You've not presented any examples where this oh-so-important
> > > assertion of yours makes any difference.
> >
> > The "work" (subspecies "copyrightable collection", or "collective
> > work" in 17 U.S.C. 101) known as Debian sarge CD #1. You simply
> > cannot read C not to include this "work". Or you can, but I can't
> > follow you there, nor do I believe that any court of competent
> > jurisdiction in any Berne Convention country can.
>
> I assert that that work satsifies the terms of the GPL (unless
> we've done something really stupid, like include programs which
> mix GPLed code with non-GPLed code).
>
> The GPL's mere aggregation clause makes this easy.
>
I believe that this is true (in the hypothetical case that the
GPL FAQ is right, which is the topic primarily being discussed
here).
> > > I see no basis here for assuming that the GPL is incorrect about
> > > what it says.
> >
> > Well, whether I'm right or not (and who's to say, outside a court of
> > law?), it's now well beyond the point at which the level of my
> > pedantry has to be insulting the reader's intelligence, so I think I'd
> > best drop it. No hard feelings, OK?
>
> Up to you.
>
> I am choosing to ignore your rather long and elliptical assertions about
> the rigidity of english grammar. However, if you want to discuss the
> legal issues, I'll continue that part of the discussion.
>
> Reading between the lines, I believe you're ignoring the GPL's
> "mere aggregation" clause. I also believe you are trying to
> bend the definition of "work based on the Program" to account
> for the treatment of that clause in the context of this license.
>
The way I read it, Mr. Edwards is starting from a different
meaning of "work based on the program" and related terms, and
then concluding that the "mere aggregation" clause is a no-op
under that interpretation. Although this is one of the less
elegantly phrased parts of his messages so far.
> Furthermore, you seem to think that the legal phrase "derivative
> work" means something less than what it means (otherwise your
> example of the Debian CD set wouldn't make sense within the
> context you've been expressing).
>
I think that Mr. Edwards has been stating very clearly up front
that this is precisely what he thinks and precisely the basis
for most of his other conclusions.
[ See also my replies to Mr. Edwards elsewhere in this thread ]
IANAL, TINLA, IANADD
Jakob
--
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
Reply to: