Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> > > it would seem that it would be more relevant in the context of
> > > Section 1 and Section 3, not Section 2 [first sale aside for a
> > > moment ;-) ]). Now, Red Hat sort of concedes that their distro is a
> > > "collective work"... See the light now?
> > 
> > No, since you can redistribute the collection as a whole if you want
> > to.  
> 
> Sure I can. Because mere aggregation clause covers collective work
> (some people disagree, of course). "The language of the GPL is 
> opaque and it has many ambiguities", you know.

The GPL is not responsible for what the copyright law covers.

> > Even if you couldn't, the GPLed part are contained as separable,
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That's not the law (and the GPL doesn't use this word).

The law talks about elements of aggregations retaining their
individual copyrights.  If the elements are no longer
distinguishable, this is not even possible.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum