On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:47 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 02:18:22AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > kernel. And, heck, this one doesn't even grant permission for > > redistribution. What are those Linux-no-libre guys thinking? > > Well we were thinking (and much legal advice seems to agree) that the firmware > is a separate work. Like your BIOS for example. Being a separate work doesn't save it from the requirements of the GPL. The GPL clearly states that under some circumstances it _does_ extend to sections which are independent and separate works in themselves. And it seems fairly clear to me that those circumstances include the firmware blobs included in the Linux kernel tarball. 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. (OK, that's the firmware). 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. (as is that). -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
