Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:09:30 -0700 | From | "Adam J. Richter" <> | Subject | Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible |
| |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:44:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > The first "official" version of Linux that included USB serial code > that mentioned you (Adam Richter and/or Yggdrasil) was 2.4. That same > version included the same binary firmware you complained about in > 2001, and the changelog in usbserial.c makes it clear that *at least* > the WhiteHEAT firmware was already present when you contributed your > code. > > Would you explain why your claim of copyright infringement is not > estopped by the pre-existing condition of firmware being present?
Why would it be, and what kind of stopping ("estoppel") are you referring to?
I do not believe that when one contributes to Linux that one is promising not to pursue other copyright problems anywhere elsewhere in the code. If you can point to a court decision or law that says something analogous, I would be interesting in hearing about it.
I believe the pre-exising condition, if it was pre-existing, of the firmware being present in a few infringing drivers among many non-infringing drivers would not mean that permission was granted to produce a derivative work comingling the few illegal drivers (or even prove prior knowledge of the few illegal drivers).
I know I have been complaining about the infringing drivers and asking that people stop infringing approximately since I became aware of the infringement.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's opinions as legal advice.
-- __ ______________ Adam J. Richter \ / adam@yggdrasil.com | g g d r a s i l - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |