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.
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.
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  that it is neither "derived work" or "mere
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).
 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).