Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
>>to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
>>from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
>>preferred form for modification of the firmware and hence the
>>source code under the GPL."
>I strongly disagree.
You have a right to. :-)
>This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that whatever binary
>is the prefered form of modification.
It is. I mean, it *is* an open door to anyone claiming that whatever
binary is the preferred form of modification. As in "this door is open
and there is *no* way to close it" (as we cannot add restrictions to the
It's the way that the GPL is written. The copyright holder gets to say,
IMHO, which is the preferred form for modification. Notice that the GPL
does not say "the form on which the work was created." And obviously,
the licensee can *not* have a say on what is the "preferred form for
modification", because in that case, you'll get a slippery slope on
"give me it in this or *that* form", at the will of the licensee.
Because of this, IMHO, the licensor gets to determine what is the
preferred form for modification, maybe -- and only maybe -- unless you
can prove that he is lying.