Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Would I be violating the GPL? | Date | Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:57:23 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote: > On Wednesday 02 November 2005 16:21, linux@horizon.com wrote: > > Amongst the various arguments here for declaring a binary kernel > > module a drived work based on including kernel headers, please > > take a step back and remember that what's sauce for the goose is > > sauce for the gander. > > I think we've noticed the past few years of foaming looney attacks from SCO, > yes. And Microsoft's own attempts to license its header files, and such.
[...]
> > Do I want > > them to claim proprietary rights in the source code because it refers > > to symbols defined in their headers?
> Are those symbols documented? Or did they have to deeply study a > copyrighted work in that claims rights over derived works in order to > find out about those symbols in the first place?
To /study/ a copyrighted work to find out how it works and then write code against what you learned, you are /not/ copying anything. Sure, the original code's license might forbid such activities, but in Linux' case it certainly doesn't. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/
| |