Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
>> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
>> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
>> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
>> subject to the condition in GPL #2, which is in general the only
>> source we have for a permission to distribute a non-verbatim-source
>> form of the driver.
> If the thing distributed is not the covered work and not a
> derivative work, why does the GPL apply to it at all?
You are free to not apply the GPL to it.
However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
part of the original author's copyrightedwork and therefore can only
legally be copied with the permission of the author.
Henning Makholm "The great secret, known to internists and
learned early in marriage by internists' wives, but
still hidden from the general public, is that most things get
better by themselves. Most things, in fact, are better by morning."