www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject RE: Comments on GPLv3
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:06:01 GMT
Martin van den Bernt wrote:
> Or am I missing a big thing here ? I see a collective work (in the GPL
> sense) as a work that
> contains the GPL'ed work, but is not a derivate work, which is not a
> "direct" reference to OSD rule 9.

I don't think you're missing anything. What has happened is that GPLv3 is
clearer about this. The GPLv3 license doesn't reach to collective works,
regardless of "linking"!

OSD #9 still rules.

/Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin van den Bemt [mailto:mvdb@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:23 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on GPLv3
> 
> (just explaining how I look at it, so you are able to show where I went
> wrong ;)
> 
> Quote from the license :
> "A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> works, which are not by their
> nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or
> distribution medium, is
> called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are
> not used to limit the
> access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the
> individual works permit. Inclusion
> of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to
> the other parts of the
> aggregate."
> 
> Which translates for me just like rule number 9 of the OSD
> (http://www.opensource.org), which is in
> turn nothing different than GPL v 2 has, only in GPL 3 they mention this
> intention explicitly.
> 
> So people don't have to look it up : OSD rule 9 = License must not
> restrict other software.
> 
> Or am I missing a big thing here ? I see a collective work (in the GPL
> sense) as a work that
> contains the GPL'ed work, but is not a derivate work, which is not a
> "direct" reference to OSD rule 9.
> 
> Mvgr,
> Martin
> 
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Martin van den Berndt wrote:
> >> Aggregation != collective work afaik (although I still need to study
> the
> >> license in detail)..
> >
> > In what ways do you think they are different? To some extent you are
> right,
> > because one can aggregate in a non-copyrightable way such as by simple
> > alphabetizing or by arranging a collection in chronological order. (The
> > phone book is a classic example.) There isn't enough expressive content
> in
> > such simple collections to turn the aggregation itself into a collective
> > work for copyright purposes. But other than for that technical reason, I
> > don't understand why you think that GPLv3's term "aggregation" isn't
> what
> > copyright law refers to as a "collective work."
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> >


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message