On Apr 29, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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.
If you create work A that is dependent on work B (which you also
created)
False assumption. We're talking about copyright notices in two separate
drivers, one unrelated with the other. Even if the drivers were somehow
related, I'm pretty sure the driver B is not derived from the firmware
in driver A.
The one situation in which there are derived works is that the driver B
is derived from Linux, but then it sets forth an additional restriction,
which is incompatible with the GPL that governs the creation and
distribution of derived works.
Keep in mind that we're still talking hypotheticals here.
No, we're not. You think I made up those license snippets?
I'm talking about two specific network interface driversf
grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29
source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in
2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license
notices were adjusted)
--
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