MPL 2 section 11

[Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel]

Harlan Stenn scripsit: 
> If a sentence like that is necessary, what about "Aggregating
> works ..." instead?

Hi Harlan, I believe that combined works and aggregates are not the same: According to Mark Webbing - Vol. 1, Issue 2 International Free and Open Source Software Law Review "Packaging Open Source" p.89 - http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/26/36 
"A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate".

Going an important step further, combination of two works in a "solution" effectively takes on a singular identity in terms of use and perception: the combination has moved more closely to the definition of a derivative work, while not reaching it.

This is due to linking: "Where two independent works are capable of sharing information, passing such information back and forth through published interfaces or by a temporary connection, such as a pipe, and not by a modification of one of the works by the other work, those works when combined in a single package would constitute a collective work but neither would likely be considered a derivative of the other." Mark Webbink said. 

As Larry said, "Precision in words matters!"
Patrice-E. Schmitz 
Legal expert, www.osor.eu


> PES wrote:
> >
> > "Combined works based on components covered by different OSI-approved
> copylef
> > t licences can be distributed "as a whole" under any of these licences.
> This
> > does not change the primary licence of each covered component (including
> thei
> > r derivatives)"
> 
> IANAL.  If a sentence like that is necessary, what about "Aggregating
> works ..." instead?
> 
> H