[-devel dropped] On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:00:08AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [040416 10:25]: > > Because when you have a compile-time dependency you create a derived > > work -- vmlinuz -- of both the GPLed work and the firmware. Creating > > derived works is an act covered by copyright, and can only be done with > > the permission of the rights holder; and if the only permission you have > > comes in the form of the GPL, then you're required to make available > > the complete source to the entire derived work. > It is not necessarily a derived work, but could also be just a > collection of works. (And I consider this to be the case here.) Collections of works are derived works; the GPL has a specific exemption for collections made up of a derived work that's "merely aggregated" with other works. I don't think it's reasonable to claim that you're "merely aggregating" the works, when you encode the firmware in hex, and stick it into an array in the source code -- that is, I don't just think that's a questionable enough claim that it shouldn't be relied on, but I think the opposite claim is strong enough that it could be. As far as I can see, the argument that says firmware inserted into a GPLed program isn't affected by the GPL because it's "mere aggregation" would also have to apply to someone inserting GFDL'ed documentation into a program too, or a non-modifiable image for an icon, or a host of similar things. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature