Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> 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 (anthology) work. I
> have said it before, but I will repeat:
You aren't thinking about enough edge cases. For example, let's say I
take a short story A. I have nine authors write nine variations of it and publish a
collection of these ten works. The whole book is a derivative work of
A. It is also a collective of A_i.
> now let's say this combined kernel accepts as-is a BSD LKM for ppp,
> p.ex. *and* that it's licensed GPL-compatible 2-clause-BSD/MIT/X. say
> Linus includes this in its kernel tree.
>
> now we have:
>
> linux_v0p0ppp == linux_v0 + patch_0 + ppp ===>
> THE ANTHOLOGY CALLED Linux Kernel == (C) Linus Torvalds
> THE PARTS == some parts (C) Linus Torvalds,
> other parts (C) Regents of USC,
> and other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #0
This assumes that module required no adaptation to fit with the
Linux kernel, and the kernel required no adaptation to fit with the
module -- they just cleanly plugged into one another. This seems
unlikely to me.
> complicating a litlle bit more: Kernel Contributors #1, #2, and #3
> patch respectively the kernel, patch_0, and ppp:
>
> linux_v0p3ppp == linux_v0 + patch_0,1,2,3 + ppp ===>
> THE ANTHOLOGY CALLED Linux Kernel == (C) Linus Torvalds
> THE PARTS == some parts (C) Linus Torvalds [1],
> other parts (C) Regents of USC [2],
> other parts (C) Regents of USC + Kernel Contributor #3 [3],
> other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #2 +
> Kernel Contributor #0 [4],
> and other parts (C) Linus Torvalds + Kernel Contributor #1 [5]
>
> [1] the untouched kernel parts
> [2] the (untouched) ppp parts
> [3] the patched by patch_3 ppp parts
> [4] the patched by patch_0 and patch_2 kernel parts
> [5] the patched by patch_1 kernel parts
>
> Easy, huh? extrapolate for ten+ years of patching and aggregating and
> you'll get where we are today.
OK... but I am still unconvinced that any object like [2] exists.
Code just isn't that modular. I specifically don't believe that the
firmware blobs fit into that slot. Do you?
-Brian
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: