On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:42:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > >> They can believe what they want. But for legal relevance they have > >> to show how exactly the firmware was derived from the rest of the > >> code (or vice versa). If they can't, it is merely a collection of > >> works. > > > > Don't be absurd. Any resulting binary is obviously derived from both. > > Why is that obvious? > > I have a binary on my bookshelf that is a combination of works with > conflicting licenses. Is it a work derived from all of them, or is > it just an unofficial Debian CD install? In conventional unix nomenclature, a "binary" is an executable. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature