[License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract

[Lawrence Rosen]

Bradley Kuhn asked:
> It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim 
> this sort of licensing explicitly.  Are there any other examples?
> 
> When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted
> software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose 
> which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the
> release" within a single package, and not "big software archive, with
> lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software 
> licenses".  Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or
problematic
> use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or
> deviating from the usual or expected". :)

I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine
various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even
if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need
to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed
GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. 

Of course, the original GPL applies to the original component, and always
will.

/Larry


-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bkuhn at ebb.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:19 AM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright & RHEL contract

John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday:
> I don't see where the oddity comes in.  If we grant that the 
> compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection 
> (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of 
> copyright.

It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim
this sort of licensing explicitly.  Are there any other examples?

When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted
software, I'm usually focused on things like "the maintainer chose which
patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release" within a
single package, and not "big software archive, with lots of different Free
Software works under different Free Software licenses".  Again, I'm
*not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I
chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in "beyond or deviating from the
usual or expected". :)
-- 
   -- bkuhn
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss at opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss