Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible

["Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:44:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The first "official" version of Linux that included USB serial code
> that mentioned you (Adam Richter and/or Yggdrasil) was 2.4.  That same
> version included the same binary firmware you complained about in
> 2001, and the changelog in usbserial.c makes it clear that *at least*
> the WhiteHEAT firmware was already present when you contributed your
> code.
> 
> Would you explain why your claim of copyright infringement is not
> estopped by the pre-existing condition of firmware being present?

	Why would it be, and what kind of stopping ("estoppel")
are you referring to?

	I do not believe that when one contributes to Linux that
one is promising not to pursue other copyright problems anywhere
elsewhere in the code.  If you can point to a court decision or law
that says something analogous, I would be interesting in hearing
about it.

	I believe the pre-exising condition, if it was pre-existing,
of the firmware being present in a few infringing drivers among many
non-infringing drivers would not mean that permission was granted
to produce a derivative work comingling the few illegal drivers
(or even prove prior knowledge of the few illegal drivers).

	I know I have been complaining about the infringing drivers
and asking that people stop infringing approximately since I became
aware of the infringement.

	Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's
opinions as legal advice.

-- 
                    __     ______________
Adam J. Richter        \ /
adam@yggdrasil.com      | g g d r a s i l