Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264522AbUFSScE (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:32:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264515AbUFSScE (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:32:04 -0400 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:49872 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264609AbUFSSbn (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:31:43 -0400 Subject: Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible From: David Woodhouse To: Martin Diehl Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Oliver Neukum , davids@webmaster.com, erikharrison@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 19:29:09 +0100 Message-Id: <1087669749.4230.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.8 (1.5.8-3.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2403 Lines: 52 On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 12:09 +0200, Martin Diehl wrote: > From a technical point of view I'm just wondering how it comes this > firmware is derived from the Linux kernel? I mean this is running on an > 8-bit microcontroller with some 4KiB of memory so it sounds pretty much > impossible to me. I'm not sure that the point of your question is. It's _obviously_ not derived from the Linux kernel; it can be reasonably considered an independent and separate work in itself. This is part of what the GPL has to say about such things: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. Unfortunately, you seem to have stopped reading there. You should have read the rest of the paragraph, and also the following paragraph: " ... But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program." Note the use of the phrase 'derivative OR COLLECTIVE works'. Please don't confuse the issue by talking only about derivation, when that's not all that's relevant in the context of the GPL. To pick another example -- the binary-only module distributed by Linksys/Cisco in their wireless router products is of dubious legality by itself since it may or may not be a derived work -- but that's not really relevant when it's distributed in their product's firmware as part of a collective work which is based on the Linux kernel. In that situation it's clearly a copyright violation. -- dwmw2 - 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/