Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
> kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
> work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
> would be each and every patch that entered th
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
> derivative works from the rights of a collective (antholo
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memo
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before
4 matches
Mail list logo
