On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that > > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere > > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various > > reasons, with a great degree of safety. > > When was this alleged conclusion reached? I remember nothing like > that.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00273.html and : http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00283.html and the following thread. These where linked from the original mail in this thread. > > No-one is saying that the linker "merely aggregates" object > > code for the driver; what *is* being said is: in the case of > > firmware, especially if the firmware is neither a derivative > > work on the kernel (see above) nor the firmware includes part > > of the kernel (duh), it is *fairly* *safe* to consider the > > intermixing of firmware bytes with kernel binary image bytes > > in an ELF object file as mere aggregation. > > No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an > aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly > than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation". So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take it to debian-legal alone, ok ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
