On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece >> of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even >> under your standards) with the other “derived from proprietary >> unpublished source code” > Given that the copyright holder on BOTH works is the same, unless you > have it in writing from the copyright holder that they do not permit > this combination, I don't draw the same conclusion as you. I don't understand your reasoning. Say I create two works A and B. I publish A under a permissive license. I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A. Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B. What gives you the idea that you are? -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
