Aggregation.

[Tom Hull]

Ross N. Williams wrote:
> 
> Has anyone come up with clean simple language that resolves the
> ambiguity of the concept of "aggregation" in the GNU GPL?

I haven't read one, but it's probably easier to think of this the
other way around: aggregation is something you're allowed to do to
two works where neither is derived from the other (provided, of
course, that you have rights to redistribute each separately).
I.e., the real question is what is a derived work. In many cases
that is cut-and-dry, but in the case of programs that enable the
creation of other programs, it is not uncommon to specify that
certain classes of use are or are not considered derivations.

> For example Larry Wall felt moved to clarify its application in the
> case of PERL modules (some GPL, some not) that are shipped together
> as code to be executed as a whole. (He said that a module does not fall
> under the GPL unless it's author explicitly places it under the GPL).
> http://www.perl.com/pub/doc/manual/html/READMEs/README

This may make sense because he feels that extensibility (e.g., the
right to write a new module) is a feature of Perl. He also allows
Perl to be embedded in a non-GPL program, which is usually something
that LGPL would be a more appropriate license for. However, he also
dual licenses Perl, so that the user may choose the Artistic License
instead of GPL, which renders the meaning of GPL moot in some cases
where the user may be acting contrary to FSF's intent behind GPL.

> Clearly, shipping code on a disk side by side is mere aggregation, but it
> gets messier when you have interpreted languages and so on. At what
> point of integration do two works become part of a whole?
> 
> Don't want to reinvent the wheel. Has anyone got some language for me?

I don't have language for you, but I've been down this road before, so
have some suggestions:

 -- Explicitly permit the user to do whatever it is that you think
    the user should be allowed to do without generating a work that
    you feel entitled to lay some claim on as a derived work. For
    example:

        You may write scripts in XXX and license them using any
        license of your choice.

 -- Don't say anything that may be construed as an interpretation of
    what GPL means. Interpretation is something for the courts to do,
    and FSF doesn't want you, me, or anyone else to muddy the waters.

> Ross.
> 
> Dr Ross N. Williams (ross at rocksoft.com), +61 8 8232-6262 (fax-6264).
> Director, Rocksoft Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia: http://www.rocksoft.com/
> Protect your files with Veracity data integrity: http://www.veracity.com/

-- 
/*
 * Tom Hull -- thull at sco.com * http://www.ocston.org/~thull
 */