> The trade secret statements are either irrelevant or false.
> "This notice does not imply unrestricted or public access to this
> firmware" may be technical true technically true because it is not
> "this notice" which what created unrestricted or public access, but
> the unrestricted public access to the linux kernel releases which
> contained that code do create such access.
Source and binaries are different things.
> statically includes, illegal to distribute any binary module that
> contains even one byte of a GPL'ed source or include file (amount
> copied is not enough to establish fair use).
Try the thought experiment. Its important.
If you put the data block in user space and upload it and that is ok, then
there is no linking. If there is no linking then its mere aggregation. If its
mere aggregation there is no problem.
If you argue its linking then mechanism is not important, and uploading the
firmware from user space wouldnt be valid either.
Your argument is thus not self-consistent.
The question that wants asking is:
Is the permission included sufficient to include the firmware as a mere
aggregation.
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
