From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263592AbTLEA1U (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:27:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263766AbTLEA1U (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:27:20 -0500 Received: from mail-06.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.38]:9921 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S263592AbTLEA1S (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:27:18 -0500 Message-ID: <3FCFCC3E.8050008@cyberone.com.au> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:07:26 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Adams CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Adams wrote: >--- In linux-kernel@yahoogroups.com, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > >>- anything that was written with Linux in mind >> >(whether it then > >>_also_ works on other operating systems or not) is >> >clearly > >>partially a derived work. >> > >I am no more a lawyer than you are, but I have to >disagree. You >are not free to define "derivative work" as you >please. You >must use accepted legal definitions. At least in the >U.S., you >must consider what Congress had to say on this. They >said, "to >constitute a violation of section 106(2) [which gives >copyright >owners rights over derivative works], the infringing >work must >incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some >form; for >example, a detailed commentary on a work or a >programmatic musical >composition inspired by a novel would not normally >constitute >infringements under this clause." >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.notes.html > >A work that is inspired by Linux is no more a >derivative work than >a programmatic musical composition inspired by a >novel. Having >Linux in mind cannot be enough to constitute >infringement. > Of course not, thought police aren't any good until a mind reader is invented ;) Seriously: What about specifically a module that includes the Linux Kernel's headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you could say that is definitely not a derivative work.