Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261641AbUKEP3t (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:29:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261636AbUKEP2r (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:28:47 -0500 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:7058 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261635AbUKEP1y (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:27:54 -0500 Subject: RE: Possible GPL infringement in Broadcom-based routers From: David Woodhouse To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1099668469.4542.36.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2.dwmw2.1) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:27:49 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) 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: 2442 Lines: 52 On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 15:57 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > Can Broadcom and the vendors "escape" the obligations of the GPL by > > shipping those proprietary drivers as modules, or are they violating the > > GPL plain and simple by removing the related source code (and showing > > irrelevant code to show "proof of good will") ? > > That is a contentious issue that has been debated on this group far too > much. In the United States, at least, the answer comes down to the complex > legal question of whether the module is a "derived work" of the Linux kernel > and whether the kernel as shipped with those modules is a "mere > aggregation". Not quite. It comes down to a question of whether their firmware as a whole is a 'collective work' based in part on the Linux kernel, or whether the whole thing can be considered 'mere aggregation' despite the fundamental interdependency between the kernel and their drivers, without either of which the entire device would be useless. "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." This is the bit you seem to be thinking of -- when it's not actually a derived work. But the GPL goes on and explicitly talks about your obligations with respect even to non-derived works, if distributed as part of a larger whole: "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." -- 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/