Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>
> 
> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
> > reasons, with a great degree of safety.
> 
> When was this alleged conclusion reached? I remember nothing like
> that.

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00273.html

and :

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00283.html

and the following thread. These where linked from the original mail in this
thread.

> > No-one is saying that the linker "merely aggregates" object
> > code for the driver; what *is* being said is: in the case of
> > firmware, especially if the firmware is neither a derivative
> > work on the kernel (see above) nor the firmware includes part
> > of the kernel (duh), it is *fairly* *safe* to consider the
> > intermixing of firmware bytes with kernel binary image bytes
> > in an ELF object file as mere aggregation.
> 
> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".

So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take it to
debian-legal alone, ok ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/