Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
> > GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes
sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after
linking.
[1] talks about adding a module to a GPL licensed program and the answer
points out that the license on the program requires that the entire
program be released under the GPL.
[2] talks about a GPL library and points out that programs will include
the library.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other
> end of licensing@fsf.org, to whom Eben Moglen directed me, on both the
> "derivative work" and "GPL is a contract" points. IANAL, and neither
> is licensing@fsf.org, but I raised many of the US legal precedents
> which I have previously cited on debian-legal. Suffice it to say that
> if the FSF has a leg to stand on, it's not visible through that
> mechanism of inquiry.
And there's a significant chance that you were asking questions in a
way that meant the answers were irrelevant to the points you wished
to discuss.
Without knowing the specifics, of course, it's kind of hard to
say for sure.
--
Raul
Reply to: