Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
> > policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the license
> > it is shipped under is illegal; and we no longer have a right to
> > distribute it.
>
> Firstly, where are the GPL violations?
The first (trivial) one is that we're distributing the sourceless
emededed modules which are licenced under the GPL without complying
with either GPL §3(a) or GPL §3(b).
> Those sourceless embedded codes aren't being linked against the
> kernel in any way at all.
The fact that they are included in the kernel itself lends credence to
the theory that they form a derivative work containing other GPLed
works, and therefore must comply with the GPL. [Note that the relevant
question is whether it is a derivative work, not if it is linked with
the kernel.]
> Secondly, when did violating the license become "illegal"?
It depends on the jurisdiction, but many jurisdictions have penal
codes specifically against copyright violation.
See, for example, USC Title 17 §506[1] for the criminal aspect, and
USC Title 18 §2319 for the penalties.[2]
Don Armstrong
1: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/506.html
2: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2319.html
--
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: