Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261667AbVDKCk6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:40:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261670AbVDKCk5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:40:57 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:34052 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261667AbVDKCkg (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:40:36 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Subject: RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:40:27 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <8764yurwef.fsf@kreon.lan.henning.makholm.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:39:39 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:39:39 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1918 Lines: 40 > > 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? Because, the argument would go, the binary with the firmware linked in is not a work, it is two works that are aggregated because there's a license boundary between them. The argument would be that the binary with the firmware is *a* *derivative* *work* of the Linux kernel source. The "a" is a critical part of the argument that cannot be omitted. Showing that the linked binary was two works would be sufficient to significantly weaken the argument that it can't be distributed. You can't argue that only the GPL gives you the right to distribute the result, regardless of what it is, because there are other sources of such rights. These include fair use, first sale, and the fact that the law does not create a special right to restrict the distribution of lawfully-created derivative works (to licensees of the original work). My point is not simply that the question of whether or not linking creates a single work that is a derivative work of all the things linked is important to the question of whether you can distribute GPL'd works linked with non-GPL'd works. And the standard is copyright law, not what the GPL says. (Though that's also important, because then you would have even more rights.) DS - 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/