[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
    On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
    > Scripsit "David Schwartz" <>
    > [quoting me]
    > >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
    > >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
    > >> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
    > > Would you maintain this position even if the firmware is identical
    > > across operating systems and the Linux driver is identical across different
    > > firmware builds for different hardware implementations?
    > Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just placing the
    > two parts side by side on a filesystem designed for general storage of
    > byte streams. There is more to say about the situation than the naked

    So, why didn't you say it when i posted my analysis to debian-legal a month
    ago and asked for comments ?

    > fact that that they are aggreated on the same medium; ergo the
    > sutiation does not constitute *only* aggregation, and the "mere
    > aggregation" language of the GPL does not apply.
    > In particular, the end of GPL #2 does not provide a blanket exception
    > for all forms of aggregation; it specifically speaks about aggregation
    > "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".

    Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the same
    copy of the firmware as a derived work if shipped on a prom on the device


    Sven Luther

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-04-08 10:22    [W:0.021 / U:54.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site