| Humberto Massa 2004-03-29, 1:37 pm |
| Replying to oneself is something terrible, but I re-read this stuff a
zillion times and I think I wasn't clear.
Humberto Massa wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
<cut>[color=darkred]
<there is more, but cut>
I think this is somewhat difficult, legally, at least down here in
Brasil. It's a serious case of the burden of proving that something is
*not* the pf4m falling on who thinks it, and absolutely not on the
copyright holder.
Rephrasing: at least in what refers to GPL section 2a, I don't think
it's possible a copyright holder put a GPL header in its code and
later say "oooh, sorry, this was not GPL'd."
More: I don't think it's possible a copyright holder put a GPL header
in its code and, at least that code in that format not be the
"Preferred Form 4 Modification".
Net result: if the notice is there, for all legal effects:
(1) the thing is GPL'd forever /unless/ the recipient of the file
breaks the GPL;
(2) if there is some kind of blob inside, the burden of proving that
blob is a GPL-violation in other parts of the global stuff is on the
person who alleges it;
(3) in the case of firmware and linux kernel, there is a complication,
namely _the code in the blob does not link to the kernel_; so, it is
*not* in *any* way a derived work on the kernel;
My conclusions:
1. it's a firmware, inside a GPL-d file, unless you can prove it's not
source code, it's the source code and you have *free software*;
2. it's not a GPL violation on the rest of the kernel, even if you
prove it's not source code... but it starts begin non-DFSG-free software.
--
br,M
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|