Joe Wreschnig wrote: [snip] > > Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case? > > And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than "this is > > nonsense", "this is obvious", or some broken analogy. > > Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree: > > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one > large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the > ls source. It's not, because it is not derived from ls. It uses the ls code, and the result as you describe it appears to be a collection of works. > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code in a > similar manner and uploads it to a non-display device, it is still a > derivative of ls; the only thing that has changed is the device I am > printing to. Anything can be proven by starting from a false premise. [snip] > Firmware can be represented as a copyrightable C string, and the > firmware in question is. This is a fact. > > That firmware is not released under the GPL. This is a fact. > > But the rest of the program source (i.e. everything but the C string) is > licensed under the GPL. Although not all of Linux is, a lot is; this is > also a fact. > > So the program is a whole is licensed partly under the GPL, and partly > under GPL-incompatible terms. This follows from the previous two. You haven't established why the firmware licence is incompatible with the GPL. > Therefore, the program as a whole has an inconsistent license, and > Debian cannot legally distribute it. This follows from the previous > conclusion and copyright law. Well, you have left some holes in your chain of arguments which render this conclusion invalid. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature