Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:46:54 -0700 | From | Erik Andersen <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Paul Adams wrote: > Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary > distribution > in some form, I don't see how you can claim > infringement of the > copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S.
A kernel module is useless without a Linux kernel in which it can be loaded. Once loaded, it becomes not merely an adjunct, but an integrat part of the Linux kernel. Further, it clearly "incorporate[s] a portion of the copyrighted work" since it can only operate within the context of the kernel by utilizing Linux kernel function calls.
To abuse your earlier metaphor, a kernel module is not comparable to a programmatic musical composition inspired by a novel. It is better comparared with another novel with substantial similarity in the theme, plot, sequence, settings, mood, dialogue, and characters, with the same story being told, with trademarked phrases and taglines, and that makes no sense whatsoever unless you insert it's entire content over the top of page 450, paragraph 4 (of the Linux "novel"), and which thereby changes the ending of the original book...
-Erik
-- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons-- - 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/
| |