Re: DLL Copyright

[Alan Mackenzie]

Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote on Tue, 16 May 2006 19:30:31 +0200
(CEST):
>    The Linux kernel is a compilation of many separate and independent
>    works (computer programs are protected as literaly works modulo the
>    AFC test) under copyright law.

> The Linux kernel under copyright law is a single entity.  It sure
> isn't a compilation.  Next thing we know is that by mingling text in
> some manner is a compilation, and not a deriviate work.

Alfred, please, please, PLEASE: the word is not "deriviate", it is
"*DERIVATIVE*".  It comes from the verb "derive", passing through the
noun "derivation", leading to the adjective "derivatiVE".

Alexander T understands full well about the difference between "mere
aggregation" and "derivative works".  It's been explained often enough to
him, and he's certainly intelligent enough to understand.  He's also
admitted that he trolls this group as a hobby.  As trolls go, he's a
fairly friendly cuddly sort, so feed him a little if you like, but not
too much.

>    In fact, not everything in the Linux kernel is under the GPL.

> To comply with the GNU GPL, everything in Linux must be licensed under
> the GNU GPL, as stated by the GNU GPL.  See section 2.

Incidentally, I just saw on Groklaw that Daniel Wallace has had yet
another claim (this time against IBM and RedHat) dismissed.  He didn't
manage to allege that IBM/RedHat had done anything which violated the
law, even after amending his complaint twice.  I wonder how much these
escapades have cost him.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").