Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Why not pursue this argument regarding the CPU microcode for a more
> generic disposition?
Because the CPU microcode is not part of a single source file along
with GPLed code (even though it is distributed by Fedora as part of a
single package, allegedly under the GPL)
Do you think file boundaries are necessary to meet the 'separate
sections' requirement? What about after it is compiled?
> It may still be two separate things. What's your
> between an aggregate stored together and a derived work?
It doesn't matter what I think it is. What matters is what the law
OK, but I don't think copyright law says anything about separate files.
But what actually matters is what the GPL says anyway, since aside from
anything else, it permits aggregates and it calls the parts 'sections'.
>> Do you dispute that tg3.c is derived from (i) earlier
>> 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.
Dude! tg3.c *contains* the firmware, and it was modified to count on
its being there. It can't possibly not be derived from it.
A container is a good description. You can build a box to contain some
odd-shaped thing, but you can't support a general claim that the box is
derived from the contents. There might be some special case for a
distinctive and creative shape being duplicated in the container but I
don't think 'x number of bits' would count.
The fact that it gets to different hardware is irrelevant. The
relevant point is that the whole forms a single work,
But there is no evidence to support this claim other than that they are
stuck in the same file. What specifically distinguishes if as a 'single
work' as opposed to a container of some unrelated bits? A file can be
just as much a container as a filesystem or a box.
and claiming it
isn't just because portions of it are for your vision hardware and
other portions are for your listening hardware doesn't make a
Why not? What does make that difference?
> 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,
I didn't mean that, but I agree it's correct. But this has ZERO to do
with whether the movie in the DVD is a single work. Surely the song
whose snippets play during the movie are not mere aggregation, they're
an integral part of the creative work.
I think you are overgeneralizing. The songs in "South Pacific" were
creatively part of the work, but "Saturday Night Fever" just played
songs that were already hits and happened to fit in the scenes.
> Yes, the representation does not affect the underlying creative
I think this is enough to show that you're seriously missing
information as to how copyright works, and it's become clear that you
have no interest in obtaining such knowledge.
I'm very interested in anything you have to support your theory that
combining two sections in the same file makes a difference
copyright-wise compared to two separate files. Please share the source
of your knowlege about that.