Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
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 of the > original work. As far as I know, no law has ever granted this right to > copyright holders and no court has ever recognized this right. And I've > looked. Courts have specifically recognized the absence of this right. The GPL is very clear in its implementation: it grants wider permission to create derivative works than to distribute them, implementing its "virality" in terms of restrictions on distribution, not creation. So, it seems that you're claiming that the GPL is broken or unenforcable in some aspects. (If you're not, I'd like to know where I'm confused.) If that's the case, it's a claim I'm not qualified to debate, but would be interested in hearing the FSF's response. -- Glenn Maynard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
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 of the original work. As far as I know, no law has ever granted this right to copyright holders and no court has ever recognized this right. And I've looked. Courts have specifically recognized the absence of this right. The GPL is very clear in its implementation: it grants wider permission to create derivative works than to distribute them, implementing its virality in terms of restrictions on distribution, not creation. So, it seems that you're claiming that the GPL is broken or unenforcable in some aspects. (If you're not, I'd like to know where I'm confused.) If that's the case, it's a claim I'm not qualified to debate, but would be interested in hearing the FSF's response. -- Glenn Maynard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply): > > >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think > > >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the > > >> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant The two parts are not derivatives of each other, of course; that's obvious. (If I take your firmware, David's firmware loader, and link them together, I havn't change either of your works.) The resulting linked binary, however, is a derivative work of both. I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it seems like it.) What's the basis for this claim? (If you're not making it, anybody that does believe this is free to respond.) The case David referred to[1] says "A derivative work may itself be copyrighted if it has the requisite originality." This seems to imply that something can be a derivative work without creative input (though no new copyright would exist beyond that of the source objects). It seems that while "creative input" is required for copyright to exist, it is not required for creating a derivative work. [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033112p.pdf 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, for example, Mulcahy > v. Cheetah Learning. Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right to make it in the first place. The GPL does this. Note GPL #2b: "any work that you distribute or publish". If you don't distribute or publish the derivative work, the work does not need to be "licensed ... under the terms of this License." It very carefully separates the permissions granted for merely creating a derivative work, and the permissions granted for distributing those works; if you distribute a linked binary in violation of the GPL, you may very well have had permission to make it in the first place. (Of course, if whether the work is a derivative is in question, that would need to be established--you would, indeed, need to argue that the work they are distributing is a derivative work--but you wouldn't necessarily further argue that they had no right to make it in the first place.) -- Glenn Maynard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply): I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant The two parts are not derivatives of each other, of course; that's obvious. (If I take your firmware, David's firmware loader, and link them together, I havn't change either of your works.) The resulting linked binary, however, is a derivative work of both. I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it seems like it.) What's the basis for this claim? (If you're not making it, anybody that does believe this is free to respond.) The case David referred to[1] says A derivative work may itself be copyrighted if it has the requisite originality. This seems to imply that something can be a derivative work without creative input (though no new copyright would exist beyond that of the source objects). It seems that while creative input is required for copyright to exist, it is not required for creating a derivative work. [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033112p.pdf 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, for example, Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning. Er, that's one way, but not *the* way. I could grant you permission to create derivatives of my work, but not to redistribute them. To stop you from distributing them, I'd argue that you had no right to distribute them--you *did* have the right to make it in the first place. The GPL does this. Note GPL #2b: any work that you distribute or publish. If you don't distribute or publish the derivative work, the work does not need to be licensed ... under the terms of this License. It very carefully separates the permissions granted for merely creating a derivative work, and the permissions granted for distributing those works; if you distribute a linked binary in violation of the GPL, you may very well have had permission to make it in the first place. (Of course, if whether the work is a derivative is in question, that would need to be established--you would, indeed, need to argue that the work they are distributing is a derivative work--but you wouldn't necessarily further argue that they had no right to make it in the first place.) -- Glenn Maynard - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
