lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
    From
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:4.549 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site