Messages in this thread | | | From | "Hua Zhong" <> | Subject | RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | Date | Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:22:51 -0800 |
| |
> If you write software by referring to documentation, the > barrier for it being a derivative work is higher than if you > write it by looking at another implementation. > > [and the IBM/Compaq lawsuit]
What you mentioned is not relevant to the discussion, I think.
People who write kernel modules might read kernel sources, yes. But they read kernel source to understand how it works, not to clone it. Even user space programmers do that. Even people not writing software for Linux do that. Isn't the open source spirit to encourage people to read it? Now what you said indicates "read me, but you are then tainted and when I sue you you have to provide evidence you are not".
People also reverse-engineer how closed-source software works. That is how we got FAT/NTFS support in Linux. People also write various interesting software using undocumented APIs of DOS and Windows. Remember TSR? Remember <<Undocumented DOS/Windows>>?
We want the same thing on Linux. Great Linux is open source so we don't have to do the same reverse-engineering thing as we did to M$ operating systems (IOW, reading source is the easiest way to "reverse-engineer" so we could write software that interfaces with the system). Now after reading your comment, I have to wonder "which one is nicer, Linux or Windows"?
Hua
- 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/
| |