Plan for tomorrows (20080522) FESCO meeting

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 12:47 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 02:18:22AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > kernel.  And, heck, this one doesn't even grant permission for
> > redistribution.  What are those Linux-no-libre guys thinking?
> 
> Well we were thinking (and much legal advice seems to agree) that the firmware
> is a separate work. Like your BIOS for example.

Being a separate work doesn't save it from the requirements of the GPL.

The GPL clearly states that under some circumstances it _does_ extend to
sections which are independent and separate works in themselves.

And it seems fairly clear to me that those circumstances include the
firmware blobs included in the Linux kernel tarball.

	If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
	Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
	separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
	do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
	separate works. 

(OK, that's the firmware).

	But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
	which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the
	whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions
	for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each
	and every part regardless of who wrote it.

(as is that).


-- 
dwmw2