On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:55 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > That block could be > - residing at an address in ROM > - residing at an address in RAM used by the BIOS > - residing at an address attached to the kernel image > - residing at an address attached to the initrd image > > Thats the sole difference - the address it appears at. You're equivocating. The _important_ difference, in this context, is how it's distributed. The GPL clearly states that there can exist sections of which which _are_ independent and separate works in themselves -- but when you distribute those _same_ sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the GPL'd Program... The _distribution_ of stuff together is what makes the difference, even when some of that 'stuff' would be considered to be a completely independent and separate work, when distributed separately. You obviously disagree, but you haven't really explained why. Maybe Les' mail is relevant here -- he seems to think that we should argue based on what we _want_ to be true, rather than what the evidence actually indicates? Do you believe that copyright law _prevents_ the GPL from making requirements about those separate works, in such a way that still lets you distribute the GPL'd work without complying with the licence? Or do you believe that the GPL does not actually impose the requirements it seems to impose in §2? Perhaps you believe that _all_ forms of aggregation can be labelled "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage or distribution medium" and thus that the whole of those three paragraphs in the licence are just a big no-op? Can we submit a non-GPL'd driver as a .o file, call it 'mere aggregation' and argue that it's not a GPL violation? Or is it another example of Les' "we argue what we want to believe, regardless of the facts"? -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
