Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

From: gary ng (garyng2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/07/03

  • Next message: pZa1x: "Re: APM Suspend Problem" 
    Date:	Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:34:22 -0800 (PST)
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

    Well said, which was my response to Linus yesterday
    but you said it 100x better. Interfacing linux(which
    is what a driver essentially does, may be file system
    too) shouldn't be by default considered a derived
    work. Using kernel header is a bit more iffy, as that
    may accidentally 'copy' some linux code. A driver
    writer must be careful in these situations. But the
    burden of proof should still be on the linux
    community, not the other way round.

    regards

    gary

    On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:19:00PM -0500, Theodore
    Ts'o wrote:
    > But that aside, does the Open Source community
    really want to push for
    > the legal principal that just because you write an
    independent program
    > which uses a particular API, the license infects
    across the interface?
    > That's essentially interface copyrights, and if say
    the FSF were to
    > file an amicus curiae brief support that particular
    legal principle in
    > an kernel modules case, it's worthwhile to think
    about how Microsoft
    > and Apple could use that case law to f*ck us over
    very badly.
    >
    > It would mean that we would not be able to use
    Microsoft DLL's in
    > programs like xine. It would mean that programs
    like Crossover office
    > wouldn't work. It would mean that Apple could
    legally prohibit people
    > from writing enhancements to MacOS (for example, how
    do all of the
    > various extensions in Mac OS 9 work? They link into
    the operating
    > system and modify its behaviour. If they are
    therefore a derived work
    > of MacOS, then Apple could screw over all of the
    people who write
    > system extensions of MacOS.)
    >
    > Be careful of what you wish for, before you get it.
    The ramifications
    > of the statement that just because a device driver
    is written for
    > Linux, that it is presumptively a derived work of
    Linux unless proven
    > otherwise, is amazingly scary. Fortunately, we can
    hope that the law
    > professor I talked to was right, and that such a
    claim would be
    > laughed out of court. But if it isn't, look to
    Microsoft and other
    > unsavory companies to use that kind of case law to
    completely screw us
    > to the wall.....

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
    http://photos.yahoo.com/
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

  • Next message: pZa1x: "Re: APM Suspend Problem"

    Relevant Pages