[PLUG] Firmware, tainted code etc [was Re: [X-Post] [ilugd] linux-libre kernel. fork?]

ഓം guru.is.on.vi at gmail.com
Thu May 29 10:12:27 IST 2008

On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> ഓം wrote:
>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Rahul Sundaram
>> <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> श्रीधर नारायण दैठणकर wrote:
>>>> The kernel is GPLed, but the firmware may not be.
>>> There is in fact a potential license violation here. Refer "mere
>>> aggregation" clauses in the license.
>>> Rahul
>> There is either a violation (though with some perception and point of
>> view) or there is no legal violation (with some other perception and
>> point of view) but that can be *no* **potential violation**.
>> If you prefer could take a look at what makes you think there *is*
>> potential!
> Since I am not a lawyer, I can only talk about potential violations. I
> already gave a hint. Read the license. In brief, if something is derived
> from a GPL'ed licensed codebase it should be under the same license too. The
> firmwares files in the kernel certainly is not GPL'ed. If there is clear
> separation, then the mere aggregation clause applies. That isn't the case
> atleast in some instances since the driver is closely tied to the firmware
> and vice versa.
> Rahul

Whosoever calls for *clear separation*  (i think) has a burden upon
self to define what is *clear* and what is *separation* and also what
is *clear separation*  as it applies to the work giving enough
examples on both the sides...

{i have a feeling such a thing may not be even existing.... if they
are..... let them rest in peace till one goodself has time to read the

for clarity's sake and, so as not to confuse already confused people
more... i will take *rest* for now on this thread!

More information about the Plug-mail mailing list