Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Except when the separate parts are identifiable and not derived.
*and* *not* distributed as part of a single work derived from the
Yes, those are true - it's not derived from 'the Program' and it is an
identifiable separate section. It doesn't say everybody has to be able
to identify the sections, but I'm sure someone can and the computer can.
> No, I just can't ignore what the COPYING file actually says.
And nevertheless you do ;-)
No, I even quoted it.
> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from
the Program ..."
"... when you distribute them as separate works"
that's the same sentence you started quoting, BTW.
Do you dispute that e.g. tg3.c as it stands is part of a single work?
It is an aggregate of separate unrelated parts with origins and
destinations in separate places.
And that it's derived from a (theoretical? unpublished?)
version of tg3.c that was entirely under the GPL?
Maybe, but the owner of the code can apply whatever license he wants.
Removing the GPL restrictions makes sense to me. Otherwise it would be
of little use. I think the old GPL marking on the tg3 code was a
mistake and a red herring in this context anyway. Why not pursue this
argument regarding the CPU microcode for a more generic disposition?
(Or, if you don't go for that, that the combination of tg3.c not
entirely under the GPL with third-party code that was present in Linux
before, under the GPL, created a derived work that could only be
distributed in its entirety under the GPL?)
Putting two things together doesn't necessarily create a derived work.
It may still be two separate things. What's your distinction between an
aggregate stored together and a derived work? Being contained in the
same file making them derived seems as wrong as two separate printed
works being on the same page.
> "Collective work" is not a relevant issue.
... because you it would show you may be mistaken?
No, because aggregates are permitted collective works.
> who can identify the sections (like maybe the person who put
> there...) and make a determination if they were "derived from the
Do you dispute that tg3.c is derived from (i) earlier versions of
Linux, and (ii) the firmware it contains?
Yes. The firmware it contained was a separate item then, and so is the
version it contains now.
> We already know they are separate, since they get dumped
> into separate hardware.
As in, a movie is not a single work, but rather a mere aggregation of
independent separate works in a single DVD, because the video gets
processed by our eyes whereas the audio is processed by our ears?
Does not compute... But if you mean that songs used in the movie are
still owned by the same entity that owned them before the movie, I think
that is correct, and using a song in one section of the movie in no way
affects the rights of a different one in another section.
And, come to think of it, even the video is a mere aggregation in
itself, because even though it's compressed, it's a mechanical
transformation out of a sequence of clearly separate and independent
Yes, the representation does not affect the underlying creative works.