Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible
From: Adam J. Richter
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 13:21:27 EST
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 11:44:29AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The first "official" version of Linux that included USB serial code
> that mentioned you (Adam Richter and/or Yggdrasil) was 2.4. That same
> version included the same binary firmware you complained about in
> 2001, and the changelog in usbserial.c makes it clear that *at least*
> the WhiteHEAT firmware was already present when you contributed your
> Would you explain why your claim of copyright infringement is not
> estopped by the pre-existing condition of firmware being present?
Why would it be, and what kind of stopping ("estoppel")
are you referring to?
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
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 know I have been complaining about the infringing drivers
and asking that people stop infringing approximately since I became
aware of the infringement.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so please do not use my layman's
opinions as legal advice.
Adam J. Richter \ /
adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | g g d r a s i l
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/