[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
it to mean.
Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic (Words mean
exactly
Michael Poole wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
snip
It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
it to mean.
Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic (Words mean
exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less.). I hope
that a license
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:26:05 -0500 Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[...]
I agree with Michael Poole insofar as this message.
I agree too.
Here's an attempt
at an unbiased summary:
There are four classes of firmware:
1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have
to go
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:06:37 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
I would argue that while the new Social Contract makes it
unambiguously clear that the DFSG applies to non-programs (such as
documentation, etc), both the old and new Social Contracts clearly
apply to software.
While it has been
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:54:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
Surely if
anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market
capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
No, quite the opposite. The former will not be seriously afflicted by
@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
Your reaction is
@ 17/06/2004 19:34 : wrote Francesco Poli :
Well, if MS Word is installed by unpacking a separate package, then
it's merely data from the installer point of view. In this case, yes,
the installer can be GPL'd. Just as dpkg(8) which is GPL'd, but, of
course, using it to install a non-free
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
for a large percentage of users. Those
@ 17/06/2004 18:27 : wrote Raul Miller :
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means
that a ...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:04:18AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux kernel
is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology work of
its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle, would be each
and every
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) should be
considered a compilation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memory
@ 18/06/2004 09:50 : wrote Matthew Palmer :
I would imagine that a lot of the patches in the kernel are
derivative works of the kernel, besides. This is, I would imagine,
the major difference between the kernel and a standard anthology.
- Matt
That's why I exposed in detail my point in
@ 18/06/2004 09:52 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary
@ 18/06/2004 09:56 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of
the license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But why do I have permission to distribute the GPL'd installer that
way (let's say it incorporates Emacs for some reason)? This isn't
mere aggregation -- it would be if the files were next to each other
on a CD and otherwise unrelated, but it's clear that there
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:25AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
I would be much more convinced if I saw an argument from the
GPL-incompatible-firmware-is-OK side as to why the GPL prohibits
distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
The interpretation favoured by kernel
I apologize for the cross-posting to linux-kernel, but this seems
relevant to me (even if it comes from debian- lists) to the kernel
developers as a whole.
@ 18/06/2004 10:02 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware typically wasn't patched, and
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative works from the rights of a collective (anthology)
@ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
files from the archive, and correctly placing them (possibly
@ 18/06/2004 11:25 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The installer can be GPLed, sure. Why shouldn't it be? You will
likely run into other copyright issues because you do not have
permission to redistribute Microsoft Word like that, but it is
irrelevant to the GPLness of the installer.
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative works from the
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
would be each and every patch that entered the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
understand. All ok. IRT making
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
exception to a work based on the Program means either the Program or
any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
the Program or a
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it?
AFAICS it contains not a derivative in the legal sense but the
original in a different
17-Jun-04 12:24 Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
My point is that any sentence talking about a work based on the
Program is by default talking about both derivative and collective
works.
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: a work based on
the
Alexander Cherepanov writes:
Look, it explicitly mentions a work containing the Program. The
language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that work based
on the Program is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
the original work, be it a derived work, a compilation, or
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:16:50AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
broke this thread for the 16th time, despite having been asked to fix
his mailer repeatedly
Why do you refuse to fix your horribly broken mailer?
--
Glenn Maynard
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:50:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
If it's undistributable, it obviously doesn't belong in main. So please
remove the undistributable stuff. Second, if it's non-free, it doesn't
belong in the kernel, which is in main. So remove anything that is
non-free from the
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 10:51, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
exception to a work based on the Program means either the Program or
any derivative work under copyright
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as to why the GPL prohibits
distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
It doesn't. If some work includes a GPL'ed work and is distributed,
then the whole work must be GPL compatible. This doesn't extend to a
collection of works.
William Lee Irwin III writes:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:34:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The current release policy says that all firmware not licensed under
GPL-compatible licenses needs to be removed. It also says that any
sourceless firmware needs to be removed.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Raul
William Lee Irwin III writes:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct:
Michael Poole wrote:
Alexander Cherepanov writes:
Look, it explicitly mentions a work containing the Program. The
language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that work based
on the Program is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
the original work, be it a derived work,
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual
Josh Triplett writes:
Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
are distributed on a volume of a storage or distribution medium.
Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system. That makes them neither
Firmware images embedded in kernel drivers fit neither.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Please, demonstrate why the firmware is not an independent work. No
one has done so yet. Then define interdependent programs and
explain why that concept is relevant to
Michael Poole wrote:
Josh Triplett writes:
Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
are distributed on a volume of a storage or distribution medium.
Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system. That
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
William Lee Irwin III writes:
I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
files from the archive, and correctly
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
There are four classes of firmware:
1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have to
go right away, or be relicensed. Thankfully, there are few of these, and
the kernel team seems to be willing to help pursue the relicensing.
2. Firmware which
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004
Michael Poole wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not his interpretation of copyright law, but his interpretation
of the license, that is incorrect.
It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
it to mean.
Reference, please? That is
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:02, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
But wait; firmware is *not* linking with the kernel, as the icons
are *not* linking with emacs. Or are they? What is linking? If you
consider linking to give names fixups and resolving them, well, the
char tg3_fw[] = ... is linked with the kernel all right. If you
consider that a call (as
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
I
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
[...]
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr.
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040616 22:25]:
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
There is a company that claims that itself is the copyright holder of
some Unix sources, and that thinks that use of that concepts is a
breach of copyright. Should we accept
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before 2000.
Joe Wreschnig writes:
I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
times an identifier is used, count the number of lines,
Frank Küster writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
[...]
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy, right?
A
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the
@ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
a derivative work makes)
There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend
the GPL. Go and
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than this is
nonsense, this is obvious, or some broken analogy.
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the inclusion of
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
However, this sentence makes clear that works based on the Program
is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In addition,
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Joe Wreschnig wrote: [snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived
from the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the
firmware is a derivative
@ 17/06/2004 12:26 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Humberto Massa wrote: [snip]
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:44:37AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 16/06/2004 17:56 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this library
a derivative work makes)
There is no
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what it says?).
You seem to be
Michael wrote:
Several (a plurality, if not majority) of US federal court districts
use the Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test to determine
whether one computer program infringes on another's copyright --
[snip]
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting
@ 17/06/2004 14:12 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
to use GPL), the very last paragraph of [1]:
QUOTE
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your
program into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine
library, you may consider it more useful to permit linking
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: a work based on
the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
_Not_ collective/compilation/anthology.
False
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like
@ 17/06/2004 15:14 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: a work based on
the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
license's author for guidance. In this case the FSF indicates the binary
firmware
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
license's author for
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
differences between
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware,
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
into the kernel.
According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective work
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:37:09 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word
would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy,
right? A hardcoded string, copied to some device which runs it, and
maybe with some additional
@ 16/06/2004 16:01 : wrote Andrew Suffield :
A ''derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
At best
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:22:34PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
One can argue that the GPL linking clause (linking with this
library a derivative work makes)
There is no point discussing this issue with you until you comprehend
the GPL. Go and read it until you understand that there is no such
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
holder (with some references to the code in kernel contributed
Humberto Massa writes:
Brazilian copyright law distinguishes between derivative works,
compilation works (in which the organization/selection/disposition of
the contents *is* an intellectual creation on its own), and collective
works (where you just select a load of works and bundle them
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
believe it goes back to the argument whether the mere aggregation
clause applies.
Here's the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
holder (with some references to
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:00:43PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Temporarily setting aside the questions I raised elsewhere about
whether any kernel copyright holder has legal standing to complain, I
believe it goes back to the argument whether the mere aggregation
clause
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel?
Because if you're using it
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:34:30PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
You think it is clear. I do not see why the Program (or a work based
on it) cannot itself be a distribution medium for other useful works.
How are going to use that firmware without the linux kernel?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:25:17PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
How to use it without Linux? There is more than one operating system
in the world. At least a few of them (including Linux) provide more
than one way to load firmware to a device, although not all device
drivers may support all
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a
derivative of the Linux kernel, or vice versa.
Joe Wreschnig writes:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
copyright notices
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
