Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262999AbVDLViV (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:38:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263012AbVDLVfw (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:35:52 -0400 Received: from zxa8020.lanisdn-gte.net ([206.46.31.146]:10663 "EHLO links.magenta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262999AbVDLVbQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:31:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:31:07 -0400 From: Raul Miller To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice. Message-ID: <20050412173107.B24721@links.magenta.com> References: <425BB484.5090503@almg.gov.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from davids@webmaster.com on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1611 Lines: 44 On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses > a library creates a derivative work of that library? No, I would not. Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not creative. The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues for the unlinked program. Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's a practical issue, not a copyright issue. > And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you > have legally acquired? The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that. > There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without > explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you > lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and > you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary > fashion. I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean. I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you. "... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ... prepare derivative works ...". Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean something different. -- Raul - 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/