Re: ndiswrapper and GPL-only symbols redux

["Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>]

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes:
>> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +0000, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> >> As long as you don't distribute /proc/kcore, I can't see how the GPL
>> >> would have any say in the matter.  The Windows drivers are (unrelated
>> >> violations aside) clearly not derived from GPL code.
>> >
>> > Someone might sell a laptop with Linux installed?
>> 
>> Not a problem, unless it is booted when sold.  Even that might not be
>> a problem, since it would be a matter of transferring ownership of a
>> single copy, not creating and distributing new copies, and the GPL
>> is only concerned with the latter.
>
> Interesting... I never heard about this `transferring ownership of a
> single copy not involving GPL'.

In the US, the first sale doctrine allows one to do pretty much
anything with a given copy of a work, so long as no duplication is
taking place.  This includes modifying the work and selling it.

> Note that some lawyers claim that at trade shows, you should not hand over
> a demo device running GPLed code to any interested party, as it would be
> distribution...

Lawyers tend to be overly cautious at times.  That said, I am not a
lawyer, and may have misunderstood something.  If that is the case, I
apologise for any confusion I may have caused.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@mansr.com