On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > > Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but > > constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other > > pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for > > distributing the kernel code with those GPL-violating binary BLOBs. > > This is not clear in the cases where the blobs are embedded directly into
Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we contacted broadcom with this analysis, who contacted their legal team, and i also mailed the FSF lawyers with it, and got no counter-claim to it. > the kernel, particularly when they're embedded in the same source files. > There's a case to be made that this is *not* mere aggregation, but creation > of an enhanced combination work which is derivative of both the firmware > and the other parts of the kernel. Simply putting files side by side is > mere aggregation -- what's happening with the drivers and firmware might be > mere aggregation, but nobody can be sure until a court case happens. Well, in the debian-legal discussion i gave plenty of counter examples, ranging from a firmware flasher (little C program with embedded firmware, exact same case as the kernel situation), to compressed binaries with uncompressing software embedded, passing by filesystem binaries containing both GPLed content as well as non-free content. So, all in all, unless you bring new evidence, there is really very little doubt about this, unless you want to consider your hardware a derived work of the linux kernel, but i doubt a judge will follow you on this one. IANAL, but there is a part of common sense and simple logic in most legal cases. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
