[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > 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.

> 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: