Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Possible GPL infringement in Broadcom-based routers | From | Michael Poole <> | Date | 05 Nov 2004 15:00:37 -0500 |
| |
Adam J. Richter writes:
> Michael Poole writes: > > >Combining GPLed works with GPL-incompatible works violates the GPL if > >you distribute the result; the GPL allows one to make that kind of > >combination for one's own use. Go read the GPL more closely. > > There are US court cases that have established that copying > into RAM is copying for the purposes of copyright. Also, I'd have > to say that loading a module into a kernel is modification.
Whether those actions constitute protected copying or modification is irrelevant[1]. Section 2 of the GPL is quite clear that it only requires GPL licensing of works that one distributes. It allows me to copy, modify and otherwise create derivative works; the requirement to license those works under the GPL applies when I distribute them.
(Because Broadcom does distribute those derivative works contrary to the GPL, I suspect they are directly infringing. My main point is that your argument about users infringing the GPL is wrong, and therefore so is the argument about contributory infringement.)
[1]- If you mean cases I think you do, they were the inspiration for Title III of the DMCA, which added the repair and maintenance exceptions in 17 USC 117(c) and (d).
> My understanding is that the FSF was able to get Next Computer > to release its Objective C modules for gcc, over just this sort of > "user does the link" issue.
My understanding is that the Objective C front-end was a derivative of the gcc back-end for reasons unrelated to who did the linking, and that was what convinced NeXT.
Michael Poole - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |