Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 4/10/06, Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> wrote: [...]The GPL uses this language because it is intended to apply not only to derivative works, but also to works that aren't derivative but do contain the work.Yeah, right.
The intent is that if you somehow make and distribute a work that is not derivative of the program, but somehow contains the program, you only have the right to distribute the program if you comply with the GPL. If the work is not 'merely aggregated', you must license the program and the work-that-is-not-derivative-of-it-but-contains-it compatibly with the GPL. If you don't, you're in breach of the GPLed work's copyright. The GPL is not magically making your not-derivative-work a derivative work, but instead restricting your distribution of the GPLed work.
That the GPL can restrict the distribution alongside a non-derivative work of a work covered by it, and thereby restrict the distribution of the whole compilation is generally accepted; legal wrangling on the subject has been confined to the the meaning and implications of the phrase 'mere aggregation'.
I'm subscribed to d-l; please don't CC me.