Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:34 + Brian M. Carlson wrote:
>
> > [For -legal people, the license is attached.]
>
> Thanks.
>
> [...]
> > Also, section 4 poses a major issue. If, for any reason, the Linux
> > kernel doesn't do something that Java requires, then we are obl
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> 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?
AFAICS it contains not a derivative in the legal sense
Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> > that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> > of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> > mechanical (non-creative, ergo
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
> >> It's a compilation work.
> >
> > Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
> > compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
> >
> > Thiemo
>
> not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> > Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
> > And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than "this is
> > nonsense", "this is obvious", or some broken analogy.
>
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If
the program, not an
> > > external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course it is. This is
> > > *exactly* analogous to the situation with firmware.
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:48:08AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Could you please explain how exactly the derivat
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> 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. Rat
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> >>'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> >>copyright infringement.
> >So does Debian co
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> > Debian immediately.
>
> Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
> license v
Lewis Jardine wrote:
[snip]
> As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
>
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
>
> How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
> themselves at legal risk.
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
> > of kernel stuff.
>
> Indeed: it's by people who are concerned abou
[I'm not subcribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
> > collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
> > I t
13 matches
Mail list logo
