From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262228AbTLEFCG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:02:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262328AbTLEFCG (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:02:06 -0500 Received: from mail-09.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.41]:46048 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262228AbTLEFCC (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:02:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD00CD2.2020900@cyberone.com.au> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:42:58 +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: Peter Chubb CC: Paul Adams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? References: <20031204235055.62846.qmail@web21503.mail.yahoo.com> <3FCFCC3E.8050008@cyberone.com.au> <16336.2094.950232.375620@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> In-Reply-To: <16336.2094.950232.375620@wombat.chubb.wattle.id.au> 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 Peter Chubb wrote: >>>>>>"Nick" == Nick Piggin writes: >>>>>> > >Nick> Paul Adams wrote: > > >Nick> Seriously: What about specifically a module that includes the >Nick> Linux Kernel's headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you >Nick> could say that is definitely not a derivative work. > >As far as I know, interfacing to a published API doesn't infringe >copyright. > So binary modules don't infringe copyright and aren't derived works? If so then the way to control access to the kernel is to control the "published API" ie. the api/abi exported modules, and exceptions for GPL modules are useless. Hmm. > >Note: > > >Paul> A standard filter is that you eliminate an element if "The >Paul> element's expression was dictated by external factors, such as >Paul> using an existing file format or interoperating with another >Paul> program." Computer Associates v. Altai specifically discusses >Paul> the need to filter elements related to "compatibility >Paul> requirements of other programs with which a program is designed >Paul> to operate in conjunction." >Paul> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html > > >If you don't accept this, then maybe you have to start accepting SCO's >claims on JFS, XFS, &c. > Not quite sure what you mean here. As far as I was aware, SCO doesn't have any copyrights or patents on any code in the Linux Kernel so it is not a similar situation. I haven't followed the SCO thing closely though.