On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:53AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > It is the _distribution_ of a collective whole based on both firmware > and kernel together, which makes the difference under the GPL. Are you claiming they are a database. I don't understand your "collective work" here. What sort of a work do you claim it is, and why does the collective work acquire some kind of extra rights ? > I believe that if we follow your logic, we should also be able to > distribute GPL'd code linked against proprietary libraries. Yes, we've > combined them together into one executable -- but evidently we can call > it "merely aggregation" and get away with anything. There's a general > interface between the independent parts, which you seem to believe > excuses the combination, yes? In some cases the answer is probably yes, not because the GPL likes the idea but because the rights in copyright probably don't extend to that. > We should be able to distribute binary-only drivers actually linked into > the kernel too. If we accept that they are independent works in the > first place??, then 'merely aggregating' them into the vmlinux should be > fine, right? That rather depends upon whether they are derivative which is an area that seems ot have little clarity and no computing caselaw. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
