Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:42:58 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
Peter Chubb wrote:
>>>>>>"Nick" == Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> 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 >copyright. >
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.
> >Note: > > >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." >Paul> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html > > >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 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/
| |