On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> 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. > If you create work A that is dependent on work B (which you also > created) False assumption. We're talking about copyright notices in two separate drivers, one unrelated with the other. Even if the drivers were somehow related, I'm pretty sure the driver B is not derived from the firmware in driver A. The one situation in which there are derived works is that the driver B is derived from Linux, but then it sets forth an additional restriction, which is incompatible with the GPL that governs the creation and distribution of derived works. > Keep in mind that we're still talking hypotheticals here. No, we're not. You think I made up those license snippets? I'm talking about two specific network interface driversf grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29 source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in 2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license notices were adjusted) -- 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