Re: what is the current status of GPL v3

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >> holders.  Like Linux, or is Linux also a compilation according to you?
> >> >
> >> > Linux is a compilation according to copyright law.
> >>
> >> Depends on what you call "Linux".  A typical GNU/Linux distribution
> >> certainly is (Alfred's opinion notwithstanding).  The kernel alone,
> >> however, is rather a composite work derived and authored by several
> >> parties.  Its components are no longer independent bodies of work.
> >
> > Why don't you simply check it yourself. There's tons of separate and
> > independent bodies of code in the Linux kernel and they are even
> > under different licenses.
> 
> Does not make them independent.  For that reason, no GPL-incompatible
> parts are admitted into the kernel.

GPL-(in)compatiblity is a fiction. Derivative works fall under the 
GPL and only the GPL. And licensing terms for non-derivative works 
included in a compilation along with GPL'd works are totally 
irrelevant. Mere aggregation.

Please bare in your mind that <quote> In fact, the GPL itself rejects 
any automatic aggregation of software copyrights under the GPL simply 
because one program licensed under the GPL is distributed together with 
another program that is not licensed under the GPL: "In addition, mere 
aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program 
(or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or 
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of 
this License. </quote> http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

regards,
alexander.