Re: gens License Check - Non-free (original) (raw)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: gens License Check - Non-free
- From: Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:16:39 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040618131639.F1892@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 40D31083.9090002@almg.gov.br>; from humberto.massa@almg.gov.br on Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:47PM -0300
- References: <UgHhGC.A.KS.x7w0AB@murphy> <[🔎] 40D31083.9090002@almg.gov.br>
Why is this a problem?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
because the GPL exempts "mere aggregation"
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of collective works based on GPLed code. It grants an exception, but that exception doesn't apply to the linux kernel.
why not?
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
That's where my question demands an answer: where is the transformation? When you show me the transformation, it's a derived work; when you show me aggregation of parts, it's exempted by the GPL.
Why is this important? Which transformations are you specifically asking about? What is their legal significance?
Thanks,
-- Raul
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gens License Check - Non-free
* From: Michael Poole mdpoole@troilus.org
- Re: gens License Check - Non-free
- References:
- Re: gens License Check - Non-free
* From: Humberto Massa humberto.massa@almg.gov.br
- Re: gens License Check - Non-free
- Prev by Date:Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
- Next by Date:Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
- Previous by thread:Re: gens License Check - Non-free
- Next by thread:Re: gens License Check - Non-free
- Index(es):