On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > 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. 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. > > 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 I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the ls source. If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code in a similar manner and uploads it to a non-display device, it is still a derivative of ls; the only thing that has changed is the device I am printing to. If I write a program that contains a nontrivially long, copyrightable C string and uploads it to a non-display device, it is a derivative of that copyrightable C string. This is a generalization of the last statement to any copyrightable material. I suspect this is where you will disagree with me, but I am curious why. Firmware can be represented as a copyrightable C string, and the firmware in question is. This is a fact. That firmware is not released under the GPL. This is a fact. But the rest of the program source (i.e. everything but the C string) is licensed under the GPL. Although not all of Linux is, a lot is; this is also a fact. So the program is a whole is licensed partly under the GPL, and partly under GPL-incompatible terms. This follows from the previous two. Therefore, the program as a whole has an inconsistent license, and Debian cannot legally distribute it. This follows from the previous conclusion and copyright law. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part