max wrote:
That's a question you'd have to direct to the author of that file, who
said that they were. He ought to know.
You based your argument around something you haven't confirmed? That
hardly seems wise but I can't say I have never done the same, lets all
try to avoid this in the future shall we, in such manner are asses
made;^). The author is also a programmer yes? not a lawyer? I am not
sure the author is qualified in the legal sense to make this
determination. The rapid evolution of technologies makes these things
especially difficult. Where can I find his quotes? Are they in the
documentation? I ask because *if* I forward this along I'll get asked
for all this info, it seems quite relevant depending on the basis for
this judgement but IANAL (i have always found this combination of
letters amusing because I think a good lawyer is anal retentive or I
guess any thorough person really, and that's certainly a quality I'd
want in my lawyer :^)
The place to start should probably be with CPU microcode that the kernel
contains and installs. There's a pretty good argument that most of the
other device firmware doesn't become part of 'the Program' and is a
separate thing even when delivered by the kernel. That argument might
be a little harder on the thing actually executing 'the Program', but if
it works there, it should apply to everything else.
My take on it is that it should be the same as downloading a song to an
ipod or other player. Regardless of how you store or encode the bits of
that song on the way to the device, it is still a separate, independent
work and it's just someone else's data bits to the rest of the process
even if that process has the GPL restrictions on its own components.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
