[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.] On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote: > @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig : > > > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote: > > > > > >> At best that solves a third of the problem. > > > > > > It solves the problem at hand -- that Debian has no permission to > > > distribute the file. You can now go back to wanking about firmware > > > all you like. I shan't bother with that. > > > > > > Debian now has permission to distribute the firmware. But in the > > process, it has lost permission to distribute other parts of the > > kernel. > > No, no, and no. > Firmware with _any_ distributable license + kernel (GPL) = distributable > even if non-free. > Firmware and Kernel are agregating only, not derived works. They don't > link together; firmware is not a derived work of the kernel nor > /vice-versa/.
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people. When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a derivative of the Linux kernel, or vice versa. Rather, the compiled binary is a derivative of both. For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course it is. This is *exactly* analogous to the situation with firmware. (I agree that there is another problem, that this does not meet the SC. But Debian can suspend the SC to speed a release, and several GRs are in the process of doing that. Debian cannot suspend copyright law, and this is a much more serious issue.) -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
