Alan Cox wrote:
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 10:11:33PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
distribute those _same_ sections as part of a whole which is a work
based on the GPL'd Program...
I do not believe they are "part of a whole which is a work based on..". In
this case I believe they are independant works that are merely aggregated.
The alternate position would be that a general interface between two
independent works somehow made them one. That would just as equally say that
firefox and the web are one work.
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?
That would seem to be a "how often do you beat your wife" question. The
underlying falsehood being that the GPL licence is not being complied with
I don't need your permission to copy the firmware for the tg3 driver I need
the permission of Broadcom.
Perhaps you can clarify this for me.
** What license is linux-2.6.25/drivers/net/tg3.c distributed under? **
If it's not GPLv2, then people should stop saying the Linux kernel is GPv2L,
since it isn't.
If just part of the file is proprietary and the other part is GPLv2 how can it
legally include things like this?
#include <linux/ip.h> which says is under the GPLv2.
And if it's "mere aggregation" where does someone get two parts that are
aggregated? You can't *simply* remove the firmware since they are so tied
together in the tg3.c file (e.g. I tried to do that and broke the driver--it
took Alexandre to do it right).
(I should also note that I'm just talking about the source code--not what runs
where, which is irrelevant to the source itself--I *never* have to even run the
code to by bound by the GPL.)
-Jeff
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
