Re: Possible GPL infringement in Broadcom-based routers

[Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>]

Adam J. Richter writes:

> Michael Poole writes:
>
> >Combining GPLed works with GPL-incompatible works violates the GPL if
> >you distribute the result; the GPL allows one to make that kind of
> >combination for one's own use.  Go read the GPL more closely.
> 
> 	There are US court cases that have established that copying
> into RAM is copying for the purposes of copyright.  Also, I'd have
> to say that loading a module into a kernel is modification.

Whether those actions constitute protected copying or modification is
irrelevant[1].  Section 2 of the GPL is quite clear that it only
requires GPL licensing of works that one distributes.  It allows me to
copy, modify and otherwise create derivative works; the requirement to
license those works under the GPL applies when I distribute them.

(Because Broadcom does distribute those derivative works contrary to
the GPL, I suspect they are directly infringing.  My main point is
that your argument about users infringing the GPL is wrong, and
therefore so is the argument about contributory infringement.)

[1]- If you mean cases I think you do, they were the inspiration for
Title III of the DMCA, which added the repair and maintenance
exceptions in 17 USC 117(c) and (d).

> 	My understanding is that the FSF was able to get Next Computer
> to release its Objective C modules for gcc, over just this sort of
> "user does the link" issue.

My understanding is that the Objective C front-end was a derivative of
the gcc back-end for reasons unrelated to who did the linking, and
that was what convinced NeXT.

Michael Poole