Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> [quoting me]
> >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> >> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
> > Would you maintain this position even if the firmware is identical
> > across operating systems and the Linux driver is identical across different
> > firmware builds for different hardware implementations?
> Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just placing the
> two parts side by side on a filesystem designed for general storage of
> byte streams. There is more to say about the situation than the naked
So, why didn't you say it when i posted my analysis to debian-legal a month
ago and asked for comments ?
> fact that that they are aggreated on the same medium; ergo the
> sutiation does not constitute *only* aggregation, and the "mere
> aggregation" language of the GPL does not apply.
> In particular, the end of GPL #2 does not provide a blanket exception
> for all forms of aggregation; it specifically speaks about aggregation
> "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the same
copy of the firmware as a derived work if shipped on a prom on the device