Re: GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox +code

[Dmitry Torokhov <dtor_core@ameritech.net>]

On Wednesday 10 November 2004 06:09 pm, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2004, at 16:11, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > That web page seems pretty clear... some parts of the prerelease are
> > non-GPL, you can distribute the GPL code as usual. Unless there is
> > some claim that the non-GPL parts are derived from GPL original
> > source or contain GPL code, why shouldn't they restrict the 
> > distribution
> > of their own code?
> 
> The make it difficult if not effectively impossible to separate the two,
> claiming that therefore they are not under the restrictions of the GPL.
> However, the GPL _clearly_ states that if it is distributed as a single
> work, then all parts _must_ be distributable under the terms of the
> GPL.  I believe that a single binary firmware image is a single "work"
> according to the definition provided in the GPL, and therefore by
> distributing their code as a part of it, they have implicitly applied 
> the
> GPL to said work (assuming it was not GPLed already for other
> reasons).
> 

No, no, no. Firmware image here is the same as a CD that you receive from
a distribution and is mere an aggregation.

-- 
Dmitry