Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

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