On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > [I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel > free to send it back over there if you think it's more > appropriate.[1]]
M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set. > On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote: > > I would not consider firmware a 'derivative work' of the kernel, as > > it is usually (correct me if I'm wrong) developed completely > > independent from the driver and only included in the source for > > convenience for the hardware vendor (i.e. saving a bit of money for > > the ROM and being more flexible). > > The real question is: Is "kernel source tarball" (the final product) a > derivative work of "other kernel source" + "non-GPLed firmware" or a > mere aggregation of the two. If it is a derivative work, as I'm > inclined to believe since it forms a whole product and so many people > are complaining about removing that part, then the whole derivative > work must be capable of being distributed under the GPL. Hmm, I know why I don't frequent -legal very often, this is all quite complicated :) Reading the GPL again, I guess the system exclusion does not apply either, right? > There are only a few people really qualified to answer this question, > and one of them is Eben Moglen. If there's still some doubt, he might > be the person to ask... (or perhaps the [EMAIL PROTECTED] people, > which is probably one and the same.)[2] Actually, I believe [EMAIL PROTECTED] is David 'novalis' Turner (a cool guy), and as I happen to know him, I might ask him about it. But if anybody else of you wants to go forth, be my guest, as you probably know much more about this issue than me. Michael -- Michael Banck Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.advogato.org/person/mbanck/diary.html
