Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261832AbUFQTPb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:15:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261897AbUFQTPa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:15:30 -0400 Received: from lakermmtao09.cox.net ([68.230.240.30]:60587 "EHLO lakermmtao09.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261832AbUFQTOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:14:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20040617100930.A9108@adam> References: <200406180629.i5I6Ttn04674@freya.yggdrasil.com> <87n032xk82.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org> <20040617100930.A9108@adam> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <96BD7BAE-C092-11D8-8574-000393ACC76E@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hch@lst.de, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Poole From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:14:43 -0400 To: "Adam J. Richter" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1798 Lines: 41 On Jun 17, 2004, at 13:09, Adam J. Richter wrote: > 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. If someone distributes _on_their_own_ (site, CDs, whatever) copies of Linux with their copyrighted code in it, or contributes copyrighted code _that_they_own_, they are giving someone a license to use against them. That is actually one of the difficulties SCO is facing right now in court; _they_ distributed copies of Linux _including_ any code that they may claim is copyrighted. Since they have the right to license such code, any license that appears to be associated with it when they distribute it becomes valid even if it was not before. If you distribute a copy of Linux under the GPL that contains code you claim is violating your copyright, then I don't believe you have a leg to stand on, legally. > 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'm not sure what you mean here, could you rephrase it? > Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's > opinions as legal advice. Same here! Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/