This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Tue Jun 18 17:23:10 2024 Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:54:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964981AbWDNOyR (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:17 -0400 Received: from odyssey.analogic.com ([204.178.40.5]:12046 "EHLO odyssey.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964888AbWDNOyQ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:16 -0400 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([10.112.50.11]) by phoenix.analogic.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:13 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Received: from chaos.analogic.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3EEsDwR011140; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:13 -0400 Received: (from linux-os@localhost) by chaos.analogic.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id k3EEs8xm011139; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2006 14:54:13.0564 (UTC) FILETIME=[4B79A7C0:01C65FD3] content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: GPL issues Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:54:08 -0400 Message-Id: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: GPL issues Thread-Index: AcZf00uAFdfUeTzjTPilIzrrZSYy3A== References: From: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" To: "David Schwartz" Cc: "Ramakanth Gunuganti" , "Kyle Moffett" , Reply-To: "linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > >> One thing that is clear in the GPL: If you link the kernel with something >> else to an executable, the resulting blob (and therefore the >> sources to the >> proprietary part) must be GPL. > > Actually, that is *far* from clear. > > First, the GPL cannot set its own scope. The GPL could say that if you > stored a program in the same room as a GPL program, the program must be GPL. > So *nothing* the GPL says will answer this question -- the question is, can > the GPL attach by linking? > > The contrary argument would be that linking two programs together is an > automated process. There is no creative input in the linking process. So it > does not legally produce a single work, but a mechanical combination of the > two original works. > > The proof that the executable is not a work for copyright purposes is this > simple -- could a person who took two object files out of the box and linked > them together claim copyright in the new derivative work he just produced? I > think the answer would be obvious -- the executable is not a new work, it's > just the two original works combined. > > Note that this does not mean that *designing* a program specifically to > link to another program can't make it a derivative work of the work you > designed it to go with. Just that the linking itself cannot always do so > automatically. > > In any event, to give my answer to the original question -- if a kernel > module and a userspace program are developed together, and are not both > derived from an API that is independent of the Linux kernel, then they are > probably going to be considered a single work. > > On the flip side, you should be okay if you develop an API for a kernel to > communicate with user space and then develop a user space program that could > work on any kernel (Linux or not, theoretically) that supported that API. > This should ensure that the user space program is derivative only from the > API and not from the Linux kernel. > > Note that you will not be okay if the API looks like what just happen to be > Linux kernel internals. The API itself must be independent of the Linux > kernel internals. > > DS > Unfortunately copyright law is all about books, papers, and publishing. It has been adapted to software while, in fact, it is not relevant to software. That's the problem. When attempting to adapt copyright law to software one needs to "interpret" irrelevant law. This means, that it means, what a certain judge thinks it means, on a particular day after hearing some boring arguments. But there are some things about licensing that are perfectly clear because they are not about copyright law at all. Let's say that because I hate Microsoft, I decide to provide a license to some software that reads: "This software can be used by anybody, except Microsoft, for any purpose whatsoever." Microsoft could use this software because the license contains an illegal exclusion that represents "restraint of trade." As much as you think that excluding a particular company from using your software is correct and proper, it is, in fact, illegal in the United states. It is illegal because the owner of some property (software) cannot exclude one company from using that property unless it excludes all companies from using it. This is not just about companies. If K-MART was selling or even giving away some particular item, they couldn't refuse to give or sell to you the same item, no matter how badly they hated you. So, let's say that you wrote a module that allowed a user-mode program to perform some useful thing that had never been done before. You are certainly not going to publish that program or you will lose your intellectual property and be out of business. Some kernel-creeper decides that they will prevent you from installing your module unless you release all your source-code under GPL. If you were to take this to court, you would have two problems: (1) Who do you sue? (2) How do you recover damages. Instead, you make a work-around. You patch the kernel so your module will work and you ignore the kernel- creeper. The kernel-creeper is powerless, even in a suit, because he tried to use illegal restraint of trade to prevent you from using intellectual property that belonged to you. But, the kernel-creeper has lots of money and invective. He hires the best lawyers in the world, keeps postponing discovery, gets a temporary restraining order preventing you from using you own property, then forces you into bankruptcy. You lost, even though you were perfectly morally, and legally correct! There is a work-around for this, too. Use BSD software. Many business decisions are all about trade offs. One of the reasons why Linux has been slow in being accepted by industry is because some kernel-creeper can cause a company a lot of damage. This is something to remember as Linux developers continue to remove essential symbols from the kernel and continue to re-write build procedures so that industry-standard methods will no longer work for building modules. BSD software might not be so "great", but it works and we can all use it. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.15.4 on an i686 machine (5589.54 BogoMips). Warning : 98.36% of all statistics are fiction, book release in April. _  **************************************************************** The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to DeliveryErrors@analogic.com - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you. - 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/