dy ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made
> only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the
> Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to
> it.
How can the binary be a derivative work when it does *not* contain
firmware, but suddenly cea
d is not the covered work and not a
> derivative work, why does the GPL apply to it at all?
You are free to not apply the GPL to it.
However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
part of the original author's copyrightedwork and therefore can only
legally be copied
> work.
I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
subject t
ion. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
--
Henning Makholm "Hør, hvad er det egentlig
der ikke kan blive ved med at gå?
4 matches
Mail list logo
