From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265287AbTLGCeZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:34:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265288AbTLGCeZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:34:25 -0500 Received: from web11506.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.172.38]:10861 "HELO web11506.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265287AbTLGCeX (ORCPT ); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 21:34:23 -0500 Message-ID: <20031207023422.86164.qmail@web11506.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:34:22 -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 Well said, which was my response to Linus yesterday but you said it 100x better. Interfacing linux(which is what a driver essentially does, may be file system too) shouldn't be by default considered a derived work. Using kernel header is a bit more iffy, as that may accidentally 'copy' some linux code. A driver writer must be careful in these situations. But the burden of proof should still be on the linux community, not the other way round. regards gary On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 04:19:00PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > But that aside, does the Open Source community really want to push for > the legal principal that just because you write an independent program > which uses a particular API, the license infects across the interface? > That's essentially interface copyrights, and if say the FSF were to > file an amicus curiae brief support that particular legal principle in > an kernel modules case, it's worthwhile to think about how Microsoft > and Apple could use that case law to f*ck us over very badly. > > It would mean that we would not be able to use Microsoft DLL's in > programs like xine. It would mean that programs like Crossover office > wouldn't work. It would mean that Apple could legally prohibit people > from writing enhancements to MacOS (for example, how do all of the > various extensions in Mac OS 9 work? They link into the operating > system and modify its behaviour. If they are therefore a derived work > of MacOS, then Apple could screw over all of the people who write > system extensions of MacOS.) > > Be careful of what you wish for, before you get it. The ramifications > of the statement that just because a device driver is written for > Linux, that it is presumptively a derived work of Linux unless proven > otherwise, is amazingly scary. Fortunately, we can hope that the law > professor I talked to was right, and that such a claim would be > laughed out of court. But if it isn't, look to Microsoft and other > unsavory companies to use that kind of case law to completely screw us > to the wall..... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/