"PETERSON,SCOTT K \(HP-USA,ex1\)" <scott.k.peterson@hp.com> writes: > "The only issue is whether G+H is a derived work of G, and that seems > obvious." > > I think there is an additional issue, and one for which the resolution is > not necessarily obvious: to what sort of combinations of G and H does the > condition in section 2 of the GPL extend? In other words, what sorts of > things are G+Hs rather than just G aggregated with H? I don't see why that is relevant for the example which you presented. Can you explain? I must admit that I don't know what you are driving at in this series of messages. That part of section 2 of the GPL seems to me to be aimed at clarifying the GPL authors' interpretation of what derived work, or ``a work based on the program,'' means in the context of computer software. I think it's important to note that that part of section 2 doesn't actually claim any rights over work which is not derived from the GPL-covered work. The only point of that text is to clarify that the authors of the GPL don't intend certain cases of distribution to be covered by the GPL. And they say what those cases are: work which ``can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves.'' I would say that if you have a G+H case which is not, in law, derived from GPL-covered G, then the GPL does not apply (this test is not currently useful because the law does not exist). I would also say that if you have a G+H case which is, in law, derived from GPL-covered G, but which ``can be reasonably considered independent'' of G, then the GPL does not apply. So now that I've said that, I see that you could be asking how to decide those cases in which G+H is, in law, derived from G, but which at the same time might possibly ``be reasonably considered independent'' of G. If that is your question, my personal answer would be two-fold. First, we don't know if there are any such cases, because we don't know what the law says about whether G+H is derived from G. Second, if we did know the law, I doubt there would be any such cases; I suspect that if any G+H were, in law, derived from G, then nobody would reasonably consider such a G+H to be independent of G. So my personal feeling is that you may be trying to clarify a category which does not exist. I interpret that part of section 2 of the GPL as the GPL author's attempt to provide guidance in the absence of law, not in replacement of law. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3