Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Jesse Pollard <jesse@cats-chateau.net>]

On Friday 05 December 2003 13:55, David Schwartz wrote:
> 	Linus wrote:
> >Put another way: nVidia by _law_ has the right to do whatever essential
> >step they need to be able to run Linux on their machines. That's what the
> >exception to copyright law requires for any piece of software.
>
> 	So they need not agree to the GPL to *create* the derived work.
>
> >But what they do NOT have the right to do is to create derivative works of
> >the kernel, and distribute them to others.
>
> 	Yes, they do. Since they have the right to create the derived work and
> have not agreed to the GPL, the only thing that could restrict their
> distribution is the law, not the GPL. Please show me the law that permits a
> copyright holder to restrict the distribution of derived works.

Uhhh nope. You are forgetting the case of the estate of Jacquiline Susanne 
(SP?). There was a developer that created an expert system capable of 
generating stories/novels in the "style of".

The estate claimed copyright infringement, and won. The generated text was 
obviously "derived from", and the developer claimed that just because it
looked like and sounded like, that it was independant and could not infringe.
He lost.

There was no problem with him generating stories for himself, but as soon
as he started distributing what was generated... Deep do-do. If I remember
right, he couldn't even release the program.