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

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Henning Makholm wrote:

As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either "a derived
work" or "mere aggregation", and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.

try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere
aggregation. I dispute the initial assumption; it appears to be
logically possible [1] that it is neither "derived work" or "mere
If it is not a derivative work nor an aggregate work, is a non-related work. Like Harry Potter and the Lord of The Rings Trilogy relate to one another. That is what copyright law says.

[1] And indeed plausible if one assumes a jurisdiction with a
   sufficiently narrow definition of "derived work".

(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
phrased in terms of "derived" - or that have several native words
which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
all need to be represented as a form of "derive" in English).

AFAIK it would have to be a jurisdiction which copyright law is not based on the Berne convention, because such language (and the definition of derivative: a work that is based on an intelligent [=non-automatable], creative *transformation* of the original work).


Reply to: