On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 08:39:39PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > It is mere aggregation since the other parts do not contain or derive > from any software licensed under the GPL. If I licensed my software > under say MIT X11 license then there is simply no way another license > can automatically relicense my software under any different license. > That simply does not work under copyright law. You can however produce a > derivative work if both components are under compatible licenses. The > act of putting distinct packages in the same srpm creates no such > derivative work. See if you can find any relatively well known sources > agreeing with you. IMO this is not a gray area that requires any court > case to clarify. Ok. I don't remember where I saw that, or if I just imagined it myself. > Rahul > > PS: We really really should not be playing lawyers here. If you have a > actual case that would affect Fedora and there is no general consensus > we can ask the real lawyers. Otherwise do take this discussion off > fedora-devel. In my opinion this is for fedora-devel, since it impacts on reviews. I have repeatedly annoyed submitters by saying that a src.rpm as a whole was a derived work of each of the tarballs. Now I stand corrected. Similarly I have argued that all the files in a tarball needed to be GPL compatible if there was a single GPL file in the tarball, this seems to be wrong too, if the 2 files don't have any relationship at link time and no runtime inclusion (say a C program and a script). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
