Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > But, I think you are the one missing the point at least from the > perspective of the FSF or anyone likely to take legal action on behalf > of the GPL. Nobody can initiate legal action "on behalf of the GPL", only the kernel copyright holders could initiate such action here. And that would be ROTFLed out of court, as /they themselves/ created the kernel with the express, and widely documented, intention for it to be distributed widely. > They claim that it doesn't matter if the components are > distributed separately or not. For example, you can't modify a GPL'd > component so that it needs a library under different terms even if the > parts are never distributed together. Sure you can. In the heyday of GNU software it was /only/ run on propietary systems, and all that software was routinely modified with the express purpose of running on newer/changed versions of propietary systems (which were the only ones available, remember). > > Thus, it is not the intent of the GPL to claim rights or contest > > your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to > > exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or > > collective works based on the Program. > Whether it is a derivative or 'work as a whole' depends on the > relationship of the parts, not temporary physical proximity. Please state which laws or court decisions lead you to this conclusion, and exactly what "relationship" has to be involved here. This is /not/ about what you (or I) would like (or consider logical), given our computer (and other) background and preferences. Remember that this is an area of law originally designed for a completely different purpose (literary works and such, distributed as printed copies) pressed into service for something totally alien. As such, only someone really trained in this mess (i.e., a lawyer specializing in this area, hired for the purpose of looking into this) can give you somewhat credible guidance. > If the > compiler keeps the parts separate so the downloading code can identify > them to download the correct separate data to the correct separate > device they are rather clearly separate things aggregated temporarily > within a file. This might be more obvious if it were easier for a > human to identify the parts, but that's a mechanical detail. The > question of whether the relationship of the runtime code makes it a > derived work might still remain, but it is unrelated to the bits of > code and data having been aggregated as permitted. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
