Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:24:58 -0500 | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | From | Andrew Pimlott <> |
| |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:10:18AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > In short, your honour, this extra chapter without any meaning on its own > > is a derived work of the book. > > I see. And your argument, had it prevailed 5 years ago, would have > invalidated the following, would it not? The following from one of the > Microsoft lawsuits. > > >From http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf > > Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft > may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any > "integrity of the work" argument. The United States recognizes "moral > rights" of attribution and integrity only for works of visual art > in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 U.S.C. 106A > and the definition of "work of visual art" in 17 U.S.C. 101.) A > bookstore can replace the last chapter of a mystery novel without > infringing its copyright, as long as they are not reprinting the > other chapters but are simply removing the last chapter and replacing > it with an alternative one, but must not pass the book off as the > original. Having a copyright in a work does not give that copyright > owner unlimited freedom in the terms he can impose.
You probably should have mentioned that this statement was made not by a judge or a lawyer, but by a CS professor in an amicus curiae brief. And the implication that this argument had much to do with the outcome of the Microsoft case--which was about antitrust and bundling, not copyrights--is disingenuous.
> Start to see why I think what you are doing is dangerous and will backfire?
You are extrapolating way too far. There are so many differences between the Linux-module issue and the vague doomsday scenario you are trying to conjure. Linus explained one (coherence and stability of the API/ABI), and I think it could be easily be cast as a test that a court could apply.
Maybe you can describe a specific case in which Linus's argument backfires? I'm not saying you have no point at all, just that I don't think this one thing is holding back the flood-waters.
Andrew - 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/
| |