On Jun 14, 2007, Bill Nottingham <notting@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> OK. Let's take this to the simple and logical conclusion. A signed
> filesystem image containing both GPL and non-GPL code. From your
> point A, this is a derived work. 

I claim the signature is derived from the GPLed bits, yes.  Whether
that's a derived work, in the legal sense, I'm not qualified to say.

And I claim that, in the case of TiVO, it is not only a functional
piece of the system that's derived from GPLed code and missing the
corresponding sources, but also it's being used to impose restrictions
on the exercise of the freedoms that the GPL is designed to protect.
And these conditions are what make it a bad thing, and that deviate,
if not from the legal conditions, at least from the spirit of the
license.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
unsubscribe notice
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/