Les Mikesell wrote:
Whatever mechanical translations you can do to something will not change
its copyright status. If you make a tar file containing 2 different
copyrighted works, they are still 2 separate works, but there is nothing
magic about tar's format that relates to this concept.
But what is the copyright status of drivers/net/tg3.c? What lines are GPL (if
they are) and which lines are not GPL? I don't mean this as a theoretical
exercise, I mean this *literally*. If you read tg3.c it *ONLY* says:
/*
* tg3.c: Broadcom Tigon3 ethernet driver.
*
* Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 David S. Miller (davem@xxxxxxxxxx)
* Copyright (C) 2001, 2002, 2003 Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx)
* Copyright (C) 2004 Sun Microsystems Inc.
* Copyright (C) 2005-2007 Broadcom Corporation.
*
* Firmware is:
* Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,
* Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation.
*
* Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
* data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright
* notice is accompanying it.
*/
It never mentions GPL *EXCEPT* here:
MODULE_AUTHOR("David S. Miller (davem@xxxxxxxxxx) and Jeff Garzik
(jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx)");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Broadcom Tigon3 ethernet driver");
MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
But tg3.o as distributed by RedHat/Fedora when it's compiled is *NOT* a GPL .o,
it has the proprietary data in it. It isn't separate at all (like some
firmware, say intel wireless, which is a completely separate file).
I look at tg3.c and I can't tell where this "aggregation" begins and ends. It's
the *SAME FILE*. Can you clearly say which line numbers are GPL and which line
numbers are not GPL?
Thanks,
-Jeff
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
