[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Nick" == Nick Piggin <> writes:
>Nick> Paul Adams wrote:
>Nick> Seriously: What about specifically a module that includes the
>Nick> Linux Kernel's headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you
>Nick> could say that is definitely not a derivative work.
>As far as I know, interfacing to a published API doesn't infringe

So binary modules don't infringe copyright and aren't derived works?
If so then the way to control access to the kernel is to control the
"published API" ie. the api/abi exported modules, and exceptions for
GPL modules are useless. Hmm.

>Paul> A standard filter is that you eliminate an element if "The
>Paul> element's expression was dictated by external factors, such as
>Paul> using an existing file format or interoperating with another
>Paul> program." Computer Associates v. Altai specifically discusses
>Paul> the need to filter elements related to "compatibility
>Paul> requirements of other programs with which a program is designed
>Paul> to operate in conjunction."
>If you don't accept this, then maybe you have to start accepting SCO's
>claims on JFS, XFS, &c.

Not quite sure what you mean here. As far as I was aware, SCO doesn't
have any copyrights or patents on any code in the Linux Kernel so it is
not a similar situation. I haven't followed the SCO thing closely though.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.166 / U:3.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site