On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 05:49 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > Not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the GPL, and plenty of > people are happy to distribute binary blobs. Just for the record -- this is the licence you speak of 'interpreting': These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are NOT DERIVED from the Program, and can be reasonably considered INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE WORKS in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections WHEN YOU DISTRIBUTE THEM AS SEPARATE WORKS. 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, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the ENTIRE WHOLE, and thus to EACH AND EVERY PART REGARDLESS OF WHO WROTE IT. Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative OR COLLECTIVE WORKS based on the Program. Personally, I can't find even a _wilful_ misinterpretation which permits non-GPL'd firmware blobs to be included in the kernel itself, without being completely crazy about it. But maybe that's just me. I certainly support Alexandre's efforts to ship them as separate works, but only if it's done coherently with firmware-loader support rather than just by shipping a separate, crippled, kernel. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
