On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
> of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
> under your standards) with the other “derived from proprietary
> unpublished source code”
Given that the copyright holder on BOTH works is the same, unless
you
have it in writing from the copyright holder that they do not permit
this combination, I don't draw the same conclusion as you.
I don't understand your reasoning.
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B.
What gives you the idea that you are?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter
http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! --
http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer