Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261451AbUFQSTZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:19:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261500AbUFQSTZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:19:25 -0400 Received: from [61.49.235.7] ([61.49.235.7]:47612 "EHLO adam.yggdrasil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261451AbUFQSSI (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:18:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:09:30 -0700 From: "Adam J. Richter" To: Michael Poole Cc: hch@lst.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, greg@kroah.com Subject: Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible Message-ID: <20040617100930.A9108@adam> References: <200406180629.i5I6Ttn04674@freya.yggdrasil.com> <87n032xk82.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <87n032xk82.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org>; from mdpoole@troilus.org on Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:44:29AM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1836 Lines: 42 On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:44:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > The first "official" version of Linux that included USB serial code > that mentioned you (Adam Richter and/or Yggdrasil) was 2.4. That same > version included the same binary firmware you complained about in > 2001, and the changelog in usbserial.c makes it clear that *at least* > the WhiteHEAT firmware was already present when you contributed your > code. > > Would you explain why your claim of copyright infringement is not > estopped by the pre-existing condition of firmware being present? Why would it be, and what kind of stopping ("estoppel") are you referring to? I do not believe that when one contributes to Linux that one is promising not to pursue other copyright problems anywhere elsewhere in the code. If you can point to a court decision or law that says something analogous, I would be interesting in hearing about it. I believe the pre-exising condition, if it was pre-existing, of the firmware being present in a few infringing drivers among many non-infringing drivers would not mean that permission was granted to produce a derivative work comingling the few illegal drivers (or even prove prior knowledge of the few illegal drivers). I know I have been complaining about the infringing drivers and asking that people stop infringing approximately since I became aware of the infringement. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's opinions as legal advice. -- __ ______________ Adam J. Richter \ / adam@yggdrasil.com | g g d r a s i l - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/