Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:46:04 -0800 | From | Craig Milo Rogers <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On 03.12.09, bill davidsen wrote: > In article <3FD4C9C8.6040709@opersys.com>, > Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com> wrote: > | I didn't exactly specify how the interfacing would be done because that's > | besides the point I'm trying to make (in fact, it's the later part of my > | email which was most important). But here's two other ways to do it just > | for the sake of discussion: > | a) Hard-wired assembly in the driver that calls on the appropriate address > | with the proper structure offsets etc. No headers used here. > > Well, the addresses and offset specs came from *somewhere*, and I would > love to hear someone argue that they "just seemed like good values," or > that reading the header file and then using absolute numbers isn't > derivative.
INAL. Observable facts (such as absolute numbers) aren't derivative (in the U.S.) because there's no "creativity"***. See the famous court decision (... web search ...) "Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co.", for example. Of course, the DCMA (or other fell beasts) may have superseded that legal doctrine.
Craig Milo Rogers
*** This raises the possibility that structured numbers might be copyrightable. - 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/
| |