Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 10:43:32PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Well, quite. If you didn't write it then you *can't* license it under
> the GPL, because you don't own the copyright; if you did, then you
> have to give us the stuff you were working with.
>
> If it's not copyrightable (because it's too trivial) then obviously
> there aren't any issues with the GPL.
My reading of GPL section 2b does not seem to grant that exemption:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
The GPL is a license -- a contract -- that binds the user to certain
terms as a result of using the origina, copyrighted, GPL work. Where's
the exemption?
It is copyright law that forces the user to take the path of GPL
compliance in the event of redistribution or modification, as it is the
only legal one. Past there, the copyright law doesn't really enter into
it AFAICT.
-- John
Reply to: