Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:53AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> It is the _distribution_ of a collective whole based on both firmware
> and kernel together, which makes the difference under the GPL.

Are you claiming they are a database. I don't understand your "collective work"
here. What sort of a work do you claim it is, and why does the collective work
acquire some kind of extra rights ?

> I believe that if we follow your logic, we should also be able to
> distribute GPL'd code linked against proprietary libraries. Yes, we've
> combined them together into one executable -- but evidently we can call
> it "merely aggregation" and get away with anything. There's a general
> interface between the independent parts, which you seem to believe
> excuses the combination, yes?

In some cases the answer is probably yes, not because the GPL likes the idea
but because the rights in copyright probably don't extend to that.

> We should be able to distribute binary-only drivers actually linked into
> the kernel too. If we accept that they are independent works in the
> first place??, then 'merely aggregating' them into the vmlinux should be
> fine, right?

That rather depends upon whether they are derivative which is an area that
seems ot have little clarity and no computing caselaw.