Re: module license taints kernel.

David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Nov 18, 2:52 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's why I wrote that the 'creative' part would be the one which
enables two different files to be mechanically combinated in a way
that they function as a whole. So, what really "doesn't matter" is
your discussion of something different.

So you rescind your claim that linkers create derivative works?

If have never claimed that linkers create derivative works.

You have a new claim -- that a work fed into a linker might be a
derivative work of some other work. Well, duh, of course it might.

No. I still have the original claim, namely, that what is fed into the
linker constitutes 'a work'.

Suppose you write a C program and I write a drop-in malloc
replacement. It's true that in order for your library to be able to
link to my drop-in malloc replacement, creative effort is required on
the part of both of us. But that doesn't make either your C program
nor my drop-in malloc replacement dependent on the other. In fact, you
could develop your program and me my library with no communication or
knowledge of each other whatsoever.

This is a different case, because both components effectively interact
according to an interface defined independently of both of them. And
it is a different case which is not relevant for Linux kernel-modules,
because this property does not exist there.

That's not why it's different.

That's why it is different from what I had been writing about, namely,
files intended to be linked together using an interface specific to
one of them, eg Linux kernel modules.

[...]

If I combined your indepedent malloc implementation with some GPL'ed
code to create something which has a function of its own, utilizing
both pieces of code as parts of them, I would have created a
derivative work and would not be allowed to distribute it except if I
was allowed to distribute this malloc replacement according to the
terms of the GPL.

Yes, if you did so by a creative process.

In other words: If I combined [...] to create something which has a
function of its own. This means that I would have added something
which depends properties specific to both of the other parts and adds
something to them which did not exist before I created it. And then, I
would have made a derivative work of the other two parts. If I know
'cleverly' distribute only the part I created and add some
instructions like 'download this file from there and this other file
from here and combine them in such-and-such a way', this would still
be a derivative work, because my creation has been designed as such.

And when some third-party links them together, no new work is created.
This must be so because no creative effort is needed to link them
together.

A really bad (IMO) German rap band called 'The Fanastic Four' was IIRC
sucessfully sued by J.J. Cale because they incorporated a part of one
of his songs into one of them some time in the first half of the
1990s. But the act of 'aggregating' two indepedent sounds onto some
medium using a suitable recording device is certainly mechanical and
the recording device cannot create anything on its own. If you were
right, you would have proven that this didn't happen and, by
extension, that HipHop is inherently uncreative in nature.

Right, because they did so creatively. They are human beings, they are
not automated linkers. The question is whether linking can create a
derivative work where one did not exist before.

In any event, your example fails for another reason. Suppose I take
Sting CDs and add some extra drum hits to them. Of course I can't copy
them and sell them.

This is, of course, true.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... So you rescind your claim that linkers create derivative works? ... nor my drop-in malloc replacement dependent on the other. ... derivative work and would not be allowed to distribute it except if I ... This must be so because no creative effort is needed to link them ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... would have made a derivative work of the other two parts. ... because my creation has been designed as such. ... Copyrights do not vest based on hard work, functionality, or anything ... Until you combine your own creative expression with the creative ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)
  • Re: module license taints kernel.
    ... then maybe I don't know what we're arguing about. ... What is fed into the linker is more than one work. ... I would have made a derivative work of the other two parts. ... because my creation has been designed as such. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.system)