Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that the
openfirmware package was were the firmware came from. The person
obviously made a lot of statements without bothering checking out the
real source. Well it didn't come from there, I got it from Alteon
under a written agreement
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the
driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
you separate
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
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
work is by arguing
that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
your work and
they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees
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
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
you could
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
upheld in the USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a copyright
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
what
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the literary
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
