Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 16:55 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> That block could be
>  - residing at an address in ROM
>  - residing at an address in RAM used by the BIOS
>  - residing at an address attached to the kernel image
>  - residing at an address attached to the initrd image
> 
> Thats the sole difference - the address it appears at.

You're equivocating.

The _important_ difference, in this context, is how it's distributed. 

The GPL clearly states that there can exist sections of which which
_are_ independent and separate works in themselves --  but when you
distribute those _same_ sections as part of a whole which is a work
based on the GPL'd Program...

The _distribution_ of stuff together is what makes the difference, even
when some of that 'stuff' would be considered to be a completely
independent and separate work, when distributed separately.

You obviously disagree, but you haven't really explained why.

Maybe Les' mail is relevant here -- he seems to think that we should
argue based on what we _want_ to be true, rather than what the evidence
actually indicates?

Do you believe that copyright law _prevents_ the GPL from making
requirements about those separate works, in such a way that still lets
you distribute the GPL'd work without complying with the licence?

Or do you believe that the GPL does not actually impose the requirements
it seems to impose in §2? Perhaps you believe that _all_ forms of
aggregation can be labelled "mere aggregation on a volume of a storage
or distribution medium" and thus that the whole of those three
paragraphs in the licence are just a big no-op? Can we submit a
non-GPL'd driver as a .o file, call it 'mere aggregation' and argue that
it's not a GPL violation?

Or is it another example of Les' "we argue what we want to believe,
regardless of the facts"?

-- 
dwmw2