MPL 2 section 11

[John Cowan]

Joel Rees scripsit:

> Somehow, what you're saying here sounds (to me?) as if you're arguing  
> that the GPL is an interpretation of copyright law, rather than a  
> license, unilaterally offered in the framework of copyright law, in the 
> absence of which the only recourse is fair use (unless other license is 
> arranged with the copyright owners, separately, which would invoke a 
> separate web of rights entanglements).

I'm saying that the GPL:

a) does not require that a collective work containing a GPLed work be
issued under the GPL;

b) does require that a derivative work of a GPLed work be issued under
the GPL.

Is a work with patches merged into it a collective work?  No, it's a
derivative work.

Is a CD-ROM a collective work?  Yes.

Is the tarball containing all the source of a program a collective work?
Almost certainly.

Is the compiled form of that tarball a collective work?  The FSF says no,
it's a derivative work.  Larry and I say yes, it's still a collective
work, because a compiled binary is not a derivative work of its source,
it's the *same work* as its source, as a microfilmed book is the same
work as the printed original.

-- 
So they play that [tune] on                     John Cowan
their fascist banjos, eh?                       cowan at ccil.org
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan