On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ഓം wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Rahul Sundaram
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> श्रीधर नारायण दैठणकर wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The kernel is GPLed, but the firmware may not be.
>>>
>>> There is in fact a potential license violation here. Refer "mere
>>> aggregation" clauses in the license.
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>
>> There is either a violation (though with some perception and point of
>> view) or there is no legal violation (with some other perception and
>> point of view) but that can be *no* **potential violation**.
>>
>> If you prefer could take a look at what makes you think there *is*
>> potential!
>
> Since I am not a lawyer, I can only talk about potential violations. I
> already gave a hint. Read the license. In brief, if something is derived
> from a GPL'ed licensed codebase it should be under the same license too. The
> firmwares files in the kernel certainly is not GPL'ed. If there is clear
> separation, then the mere aggregation clause applies. That isn't the case
> atleast in some instances since the driver is closely tied to the firmware
> and vice versa.
>
> Rahul
>
Whosoever calls for *clear separation* (i think) has a burden upon
self to define what is *clear* and what is *separation* and also what
is *clear separation* as it applies to the work giving enough
examples on both the sides...
{i have a feeling such a thing may not be even existing.... if they
are..... let them rest in peace till one goodself has time to read the
tombstone!}
for clarity's sake and, so as not to confuse already confused people
more... i will take *rest* for now on this thread!
--
______________________________________________________________________
Pune GNU/Linux Users Group Mailing List: (plug-mail@plug.org.in)
List Information: http://plug.org.in/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug-mail
Send 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for mailing instructions.
