On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:48 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. This could probably be considered as a "mere aggregation" for the purposes of the GPL, however, IANAL -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
