Re: module license taints kernel.

On Nov 20, 9:14 am, Bob Tennent <B...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But one cannot distribute or modify a copyrighted work except as
licensed by the copyright holder;

Yes, but you have to understand the technical definitions of
"distribute" and "modify" as they are used in this context.

so that would apply to a non-creative
modification as well.

You are using the word "modify" in its commonsense meaning, not its
precise technical meaning. In copyright law, you are not prohibit from
"modifying" in the ordinary sense, you are prohibit from creating
derivative works. A "non-creative modification" does not create a
derivative work, in general.

In any case, linking with a non-GPLed module isn't like this. The
linking may be non-creative and automatic, but the module itself isn't.

If I take a DVD of The Lion King and a DVD of The Phantom Menace, I
can put them in the same box without creating a derivative work. This
is so even though each of the two works I put in the box are creative.
The question is, can I put them in the box? And the answer depends
upon what "putting in the box" does, not on what the original works
are.

Legally, an automated combining process does nothing. It's no
different from putting two DVDs in the same box. It's a non-creative
combination.

We're not getting anywhere. All I can say is: tell it to the judge.

See Lexmark v. Static Controls.

DS
.