From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264528AbTLEWoC (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:44:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264548AbTLEWoC (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:44:02 -0500 Received: from web11502.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.172.47]:10582 "HELO web11502.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S264528AbTLEWnq (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:43:46 -0500 Message-ID: <20031205224345.13710.qmail@web11502.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:43:45 -0800 (PST) From: gary ng Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org As the copyright holder, you definitely have the right to staple restrictions on derivative works. However, I would say your idea(if I interpet them correctly) of derivative work is a bit broad. My understanding of derivative work is that it is based on your work which is a form of expression(in this case, I believe is the source code). If I don't include/copy your source code, how can it be a derivative work ? if you mean the function calls(or should it be called kernel APIs) is copyrightable, would it be that projects like WINE is infringing Microsoft's copyright ? The inclusion of kernel header is a complex issue. As a header usually contains constant/function definitions, structure definitions(in order to properly working with the kernel) and sometimes inline functions. inline functions is definitely a form of expression which is copyrightable but for the others, should they be classified as 'interface' than copyright materials ? If they are copyrightable material, I believe things like FAT should be removed from linux as the FAT layout(thus the structure in say C) seems to be copyrightable too. So I would say that if a driver writer creates their own header files which specifies the same constant/function definitions in order to interface with linux, I don't think their works are derivative work of linux. In fact, it can be argued that these are exceptions cover in the DMCA like what the xbox-linux project stated : "Everything done on this project is for the sole purpose of writing interoperable software under Sect. 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering exception of the DMCA" the drivers would then be the "interoperable software" for linux. All these are just my limited understanding and interpretation of copyright and I believe unless the whole thing is challenged and decided in court, there is really no real answer. May be the SCO case can make this clear. regards, gary On Friday 05 December 2003 01:14 pm, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > Please show me the law > > that permits a copyright holder to restrict the distribution of > > derived works. > > The "show me the law" is USC 17. It's called "US Copyright Law". As a > copyright holder in the Linux kernel, I _do_ have the right to restrict > the distribution of derived works. That's what copyright law is all > about. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/