| 1 |
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:28:37 PM Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez |
| 3 |
> <frodriguez.developer@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends |
| 6 |
on |
| 7 |
> > the GPL exports. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or |
| 10 |
> court case. That is the issue here. People argue that linking |
| 11 |
> creates a derivative work, and I think that at best it only creates a |
| 12 |
> derivative work after the image ends up in RAM. The blob itself |
| 13 |
> doesn't contain any kernel code, unless you count a bunch of symbol |
| 14 |
> names. And that is API copyrighting, which is a horrible idea (though |
| 15 |
> one the US seems to be entertaining now all the same; Murcia!). |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it, it's not on the "letter of the law" |
| 18 |
because it's a technical issue and the law hasn't caught up. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
My view, and what I think is most in the spirit of the law, is that it is a |
| 21 |
derived work simply because it doesn't work without those GPL exports. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Fernando Rodriguez |
Archives