| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2015, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Better yet, you can claim copyright on a "compilation" which is |
| 4 |
> probably what is effectively being done here. This is how people get |
| 5 |
> away with defending their copyright on publications of (slightly |
| 6 |
> modified/ abridged/ annotated, if at all) "compilations" of |
| 7 |
> centuries old works. Because copyright law. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It doesn't work like this in our case. The Portage tree is licensed |
| 10 |
under the GPL-2. If someone takes a subset of ebuilds from it, it will |
| 11 |
be a "derivative work" and it cannot be distributed under any license |
| 12 |
other than the GPL-2. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It is even doubtful if any third-party ebuilds added to such a tree |
| 15 |
could be under a different license. If such ebuilds inherit from a GPL |
| 16 |
licensed eclass or depend on (or are depended on by) other ebuilds, |
| 17 |
they cannot "be reasonably considered independent and separate works |
| 18 |
in themselves". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
IANAL, TINLA |
| 21 |
Ulrich |
Archives