Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261894AbVDKTdI (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:33:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261895AbVDKTdH (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:33:07 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:38673 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261894AbVDKTdA (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2005 15:33:00 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: , Subject: RE: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:31:53 -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: <425A655D.1010201@almg.gov.br> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:31:00 -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, Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:31:05 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1483 Lines: 35 > > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could > > it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is > > no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to > > withhold from me. > Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities (copy, > distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works). Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* mention distribution of derivative works. [from another post] >Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of >derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common, >for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work >that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not >distribute) the derivative work. This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the contract would not apply to you. 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/