lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

    Rob,

    > The fact you personally were off in a corner talking about little green men
    > from mars is remarkably irrelevant to what I wrote to Hua Zhong (who I'm
    > fairly certain is not you. His english is better.)

    Gee, I love the insults. I seriously doubt you have ever paid a lawyer
    to even have the knowledge to allow you to pump out the bovine piles you
    are spraying in the air.

    Correct, I am not a lawyer, and you admit you are not one.

    I have paid lawyers for advice and some damn good ones.

    Can you say the same?

    Cheers,

    Andre Hedrick
    LAD Storage Consulting Group

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Rob Landley wrote:

    > On Thursday 11 December 2003 15:20, Andre Hedrick wrote:
    > > Rob,
    > >
    > > Help me out? Who is cloning what ?
    > >
    > > I am talking about original works, to talking about talking somebody's
    > > stuff out of the kernel, hacking it up and distributing the work as an
    > > original (that is clearly a derived work).
    > >
    > > So your arguement is bogus, try again.
    >
    > If you'd read the message, you might have noticed that I was talking about why
    > web browser plugins may be considered to be different from kernel modules.
    >
    > The fact you personally were off in a corner talking about little green men
    > from mars is remarkably irrelevant to what I wrote to Hua Zhong (who I'm
    > fairly certain is not you. His english is better.)
    >
    > I have no intention of "trying again" because I wasn't talking to you in the
    > first place. (I don't find what you have to say on IP issues particularly
    > interesting, and don't read the ones that aren't cc'd to me...) Neither of
    > us are lawyers. The difference is that I know it.
    >
    > Rob
    >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Andre Hedrick
    > > LAD Storage Consulting Group
    > >
    > > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Rob Landley wrote:
    > > > On Thursday 11 December 2003 02:11, Hua Zhong wrote:
    > > > > > For one thing, the plugin was made by someone without access
    > > > > > to Netscape or IE's source code, using a documented interface
    > > > > > that contained sufficient information to do the job without access
    > > > > > to that source code.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Yes, it matters.
    > > > >
    > > > > _What_ matters?
    > > > >
    > > > > Open source? (if you write a plugin for an opensource
    > > > > kernel/application, you are not plugin anymore and you are derived
    > > > > work.) I am sure you don't mean it.
    > > > >
    > > > > Documented interface? Hey, there are sources which are the best
    > > > > documentation. :-)
    > > >
    > > > 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.
    > > >
    > > > > Seriously, even if I accept that there is never an intent to support a
    > > > > stable ABI for kernel modules, some vendor can easily claim that "we
    > > > > support a stable ABI, so write kernel modules for the kernel we
    > > > > distribute".
    > > > >
    > > > > Anything can prevent that? I cannot see GPL disallow it.
    > > > >
    > > > > So OK, Linus and other kernel developers never intended to provide a
    > > > > stable ABI, but someone else could. The original author's intent is
    > > > > never relevant anymore. This is the goodness of opensource, isn't it?
    > > >
    > > > Once upon a time, Compaq did a clean-room clone of IBM's BIOS. Group 1
    > > > studied the original bios and wrote up a spec, and group 2 wrote a new
    > > > bios from that spec, and group 1 never spoke to group 2, and all of this
    > > > was extensively documented so that when IBM sued them they proved in
    > > > court that their BIOS wasn't derived from IBM's. (Of course compaq used
    > > > vigin programmers fresh out of college who'd never seen a PC before,
    > > > which was a lot easier to do in 1983...)
    > > >
    > > > I didn't make this up. This was a really big deal 20 years ago. It
    > > > happened, and it mattered, and people cared that they created a fresh
    > > > implementation without seeing the original code, entirely from a written
    > > > specification that was not a derivative work of the first implementation,
    > > > so no matter how similar the second implementation was (hand-coded
    > > > assembly performing the same functions on the same processor in the same
    > > > amount of space), it could not be considered a derivative work.
    > > >
    > > > This was a strong enough defense to beat IBM's lawyers, who were trying
    > > > to claim that Compaq's new BIOS WAS a derivative work...
    > > >
    > > > Rob
    >
    > -
    > 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/
    >

    -
    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:0.026 / U:0.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site