Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
> a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues
for the unlinked program.
Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where
you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's
a practical issue, not a copyright issue.
> And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you
> have legally acquired?
The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that.
> There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without
> explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you
> lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and
> you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary
I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean.
I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you.
"... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ...
prepare derivative works ...".
Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean