David Schwartz wrote:
IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a laptop with a
closed-source driver loaded through ndiswrapper.
If that were true, you couldn't legally install more than one program on a
computer
> without permission from all the copyright holders without specific license
permission.
A "work based on the Program" is the same as a derivative work. A laptop with
an assortment
> of different programs on it is not a work, it is a collection of works.
The GPL makes an exception for mere aggregation. Typical copyright law also only
allows copyright on collections if there is sufficient art in the selection
and arrangement of the components. So one could make the case that a laptop
loaded with programs doesn't fall under this clause. On the other hand,
a computer sold as an appliance could conceivably be deemed to be a derived
work, since it is sold to perform a particular task, and obviously
it's components have been carefully chosen and arranged to perform that
task. I understand that Linux has an explicit exception clause to
prevent non-GPL user mode programs falling into this situation.
Graeme Gill.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
