Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

Sven Luther
2005-04-08T08:00:25Z

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> >an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> >disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the result is considered a "derivative work" of the
> gpl'd code.
>
> The GPL states "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based
> on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on
> a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other
> work under the scope of this License."
>
> Since the main cpu does not actually run the binary firmware, the fact
> that it lives in main memory with the code that the cpu *does* run is
> irrelevent. In this case, the Debian stance is that the kernel proper
> and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage (
> ie. system memory).

The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under the GPL, thus making
them undistributable by the selfsame definition of the GPL.

Friendly,

Sven Luther