Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible

[Kyle Moffett]

On Jun 17, 2004, at 13:09, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> 	I do not believe that when one contributes to Linux that
> one is promising not to pursue other copyright problems anywhere
> elsewhere in the code.  If you can point to a court decision or law
> that says something analogous, I would be interesting in hearing
> about it.

If someone distributes _on_their_own_ (site, CDs, whatever) copies
of Linux with their copyrighted code in it, or contributes copyrighted
code _that_they_own_, they are giving someone a license to use
against them.  That is actually one of the difficulties SCO is facing
right now in court; _they_ distributed copies of Linux _including_ any
code that they may claim is copyrighted.  Since they have the right to
license such code, any license that appears to be associated with it
when they distribute it becomes valid even if it was not before.  If you
distribute a copy of Linux under the GPL that contains code you
claim is violating your copyright, then I don't believe you have a leg
to stand on, legally.

> 	I believe the pre-exising condition, if it was pre-existing,
> of the firmware being present in a few infringing drivers among many
> non-infringing drivers would not mean that permission was granted
> to produce a derivative work comingling the few illegal drivers
> (or even prove prior knowledge of the few illegal drivers).

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you rephrase it?

> 	Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's
> opinions as legal advice.

Same here!

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/