Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261644AbVDKA0h (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:26:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261647AbVDKA0h (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:26:37 -0400 Received: from [81.168.75.8] ([81.168.75.8]:27817 "EHLO henning.makholm.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261644AbVDKA0e convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:26:34 -0400 To: , Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. References: From: Henning Makholm Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:26:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: (David Schwartz's message of "Sat, 9 Apr 2005 20:07:03 -0700") Message-ID: <8764yurwef.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2312 Lines: 50 Scripsit "David Schwartz" >> However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains >> part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only >> legally be copied with the permission of the author. > The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work > is by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative > work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first > place. See, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. You don't need to argue that the thing being distributed is a derivative work. It is enough that it _contains_ your copyrighted work. > My point is that the reason the derivative work issue is so > important is because it's the only way (in U.S. law anyway) that the > GPL can apply to anything other than the exact thing the author > chose to apply it to. The taske of the GPL is to _give permission_ when certain conditions hold. Therefore, if the GPL does not apply yet you still need permission from the author (beacuse what you're distributing contains his work), then you do not have that permission and cannot distribute _at all_. I'm not sure whether meant instead that the original _copyright_ only influences things that are derivative works, but that would have even more bizarre consequences. > The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even > though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made > only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the > Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to > it. How can the binary be a derivative work when it does *not* contain firmware, but suddenly cease to be a derivative work if one *does* add firmware into it? -- Henning Makholm "Vi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foresl?, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side s?rger for at fremsende tallene og ogs? give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man l?ser tallene. Tak for i dag!" - 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/