From alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz  Wed Mar 10 22:11:26 1999
Received: from sunu450.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (sunu450.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de [134.147.222.33])
	by marvin.jcu.cz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id WAA22825
	for <alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz>; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 22:11:20 +0100
Received: (qmail 1050 invoked from network); 10 Mar 1999 21:11:19 -0000
Received: from dialppp-5-168.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (HELO localhost) (mail@134.147.5.168)
  by mailhost.rz.ruhr-uni-bochum.de with SMTP; 10 Mar 1999 21:11:19 -0000
Received: from brinkmds by localhost with local (Exim 2.11 #1 (Debian))
	id 10Kpsf-0000AD-00; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:47:05 +0100
Message-ID: <19990310214705.G204@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 21:47:05 +0100
From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Subject: Re: ALSA Soundcard Vendor Information
References: <19990308202526.H391@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> <m10KImv-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <m10KImv-000sLNC@lbscissors.kek.jp>; from sharkey@ale.physics.sunysb.edu on Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 06:26:57PM +0900
Reply-To: alsa-devel@alsa.jcu.cz
Sender: alsa-devel-owner@alsa.jcu.cz
Precedence: list

On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 06:26:57PM +0900, sharkey@ale.physics.sunysb.edu wrote:
> > > That's true.  However, if the firmware is patched to resolve some
> > > incompatibility, does that make it a derived work?
> > 
> > Definitely yes. How could it be something else?
> 
> *Yes*???  I don't understand your logic.

There is a misunderstanding here, please see below.
 
> My understanding of a "derived work" is something that takes the code of
> of an "original work" and modifies it to create a new work or incorporates
> into another existing work.

Exactly.
 
> If I use certain versions of Netscape with certain versions of bash, there's
> an error in the way Netscape starts certain external applications.  Netscape
> was patched to avoid this problem in the 4.5 release.  Is Netscape 4.5 a
> derived work of bash?

You wrote above "if the firmware is patched [...] does that make it a
derived work." I referenced "it" = "firmware". The patched binary is a
derived work from the not-patched binary. I did not want to imply that the
atched firmware is a derived work from alsa.
 
> > * The firmware may be disassembled.
> > * The firmware may be patched with a binary patch, thus forming a derived
> >   work, which can be distributed under the very terms described here.
> 
> These two are not needed in all cases.  Consider the case where it's the
> hardware manufacturer that writes the new firmware.  If they release a "Linux
> certified" firmware release, it may still be useful to distribute it even
> if they don't allow disassembly or modification.  I've seen many such sets of
> new firmware which were made for a certain operating system that was released
> in 1995; I don't think it's unreasonable for Linux to command enough power
> to get such things in the near future. 

Well, if you want/need to patch it, these requriements are certainly
important. If you don't feel the need to patch it, the situation is
different of course.

Thanks,
Marcus

-- 
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org   finger brinkmd@ 
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org     master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de                        for public  PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/       PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

