Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:58:37 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| |
* David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a > storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But when you > distribute those same sections as part of a whole...' bit _ever_ > apply? It _explicitly_ talks of sections which are independent and > separate works in their own right, but which must be licensed under > the GPL when they're distributed as part of a larger whole. > > I don't see how we could hold the view that _even_ linking is 'mere > aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium', without > conveniently either ignoring entire paragraphs of the GPL or declaring > them to be entirely meaningless.
as long as it's not distributed in one collective work, where is the problem? A driver could be argued to be part of a mere compilation of works (not part of a collective work), or just two separate works. But ... this is a much greyer area than the key stuff.
> Of course, that doesn't mean that a court _wouldn't_ do that. Given > enough money, I'm sure you could get US court to declare that the > world is flat. But it doesn't seem to be a reasonable viewpoint, to > me. Or a likely outcome.
i'm not that cynical about US courts.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |