Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:48:06 -0600 (CST) | From | Josh Myer <> | Subject | Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules |
| |
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :( > > Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be > protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in > mm_inline.h and of some of the semaphore code, but probably > isn't true of the spinlock code. >
(US-Centric, since that's where I'm from, live, and code)
Since you're functionally using it, and it's not a protected use (Satire, etc, though some would argue that the nvidia drivers are a mockery...), I would tend to think Fair Use wouldn't apply in this case. Are there any IP Lawyers in the house?
The only analogy i can think of is a remix of songs, and several people have gotten into wonderfully large lawsuits over that.
> Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by > copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered > a derived work. Many questions remaining... >
This basically all falls upon the shoulders of whoever wrote the spinlock code on whatever platform you're compiling for...
At this point, I think it's safe to say that the days of the legally unencumbered binary-only module (read: binary-only modules you aren't liable to get sued for) are numbered. Personally, I'm a little saddened at the loss of openness, but won't miss weird binary-only problems. -- /jbm, but you can call me Josh. Really, you can! "What's a metaphor?" "For sheep to graze in" 7958 1C1C 306A CDF8 4468 3EDE 1F93 F49D 5FA1 49C4
- 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/
| |