Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Scripsit Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> 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 ?
I have this thing called a day job which sometimes take priority over
reading debian-legal postings. Occasionally I have to purge the
backlog of unread postings by the "catch-up" command.
Also, the subject has been beaten into .. well, if not death then at
least very bad health, so often that it would serve no useful purpose
to consistently repost old arguments each time the question was raised.
> 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
I do not consider the firmware _itself_ to be a derived work at all.
When it is distributed alone (e.g. on a prom on the device itself), it
is completly independent of the copyright state of the driver that
works with it.
Henning Makholm "Jeg har tydeligt gjort opmærksom på, at man ved at
følge den vej kun bliver gennemsnitligt ca. 48 år gammel,
og at man sætter sin sociale situation ganske overstyr og, så
vidt jeg kan overskue, dør i dybeste ulykkelighed og elendighed."