Alexandre Oliva <aoliva(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>> The other is, is the kernel separate from the device's firmware?
>>> That's a different question, unrelated to how that firmware got into
>>> the device.
>> I know. I don't understand why you insist on this irrelevant point.
> Because I think it is the only relevent point. It is only if the
> combined works form a derivative work that restrictions can apply to
> the combination differently than the components and whether a
> derivative work is formed does not depend on how the components were
There are various possibilities here, let me summarize the ones that
occur to me, in no particular order:
a. one work is a derivative from the other, and they are distributed
b. one work is a derivative from the other, and they are distributed
c. two unrelated works are distributed separately
d. two works are combined into a single coherent work, undoubtedly a
derivative from both, regardless of whether the two works were
originally related, and then the derivative work is distributed
If they were originally not related, just gluing them together doesn't
make them derivatives of each other.
e. two unrelated works are distributed together by mere aggregation
a single volume of storage or distribution medium
If I understood your argument correctly, you appear to be proposing
that, because cases such as (a-c) exist, the case at hand can't be
(d), so it must be (e). I don't see how this conclusion can follow
from the premises. Please clue me in?
(d) is impossible, so only (e) is left.
Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile 2340000 Fax: +56 32 2797513