linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-03 21:31 Kendall Bennett
  2003-12-03 21:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Kendall Bennett @ 2003-12-03 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Hi All,

I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux 
Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an 
exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be 
under the GPL. Obviously today there are vendors delivering binary 
modules (not supported by the kernel maintainers of course), so clearly 
people believe this to be true. However I was curious about the wording 
of this exception clause so I went looking for it, but I cannot seem to 
find it. I downloaded the 2.6-test1 kernel source code and looked at the 
COPYING file, but found nothing relating to this (just the note at the 
top from Linus saying user programs are not covered by the GPL). I also 
looked in the README file and nothing was mentioned there either, at 
least from what I could see from a quick read.

So does this exception clause exist or not? If not, how can the binary 
modules be valid for use under Linux if the source is not made available 
under the terms of the GNU GPL?

Lastly I noticed that the few source code modules I looked at to see if 
the exception clause was mentioned there, did not contain the usual GNU 
GPL preable section at the top of each file. IMHO all files need to have 
such a notice attached, or they are not under the GNU GPL (just being in 
a ZIP/tar achive with a COPYING file does not place a file under the GNU 
GPL). Given all the current legal stuff going on with SCO, I figured 
every file would have such a header. In fact some of the files I looked 
at didn't even contain a basic copyright notice!!

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-03 22:58 Xose Vazquez Perez
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Xose Vazquez Perez @ 2003-12-03 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> there is no such exception, for example see:
>
> http://www.kernelnewbies.org/kernels/rh9/SOURCES/COPYING.module

and 'Proprietary kernel modules' in: http://people.redhat.com/rkeech/pkm.html

moral:
       closed source modules sucks.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-03 23:22 Jason Kingsland
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Jason Kingsland @ 2003-12-03 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: KendallB

Kendall Bennett wrote:
>So does this exception clause exist or not? If not, how can the binary 
>modules be valid for use under Linux if the source is not made available 
>under the terms of the GNU GPL?


The exception does not exist, at least not as a clearly stated license 
ammendment or similar.

There was some email discussion on this topic with input from the various 
Linux contributors some time back, but no firm conclusion. It's archived 
here: http://people.redhat.com/rkeech/pkm.html

This led indirectly to the introduction of the GPL license flag for kernel 
API calls, so that authors who specifically don't want their code used by 
binary modules can mark it as such.

By inference, this essentially provided a defendable position that binary 
loadable modules are OK so long as they don't use API calls explicitly 
defined as GPL only. Otherwise why else would such a flag have been 
introduced?

Many vendors use this as an excuse not to release their software under GPL.  
They are distributing GPL derived works in a binary-only format and are in 
violation of the Linux kernel copyright as far as I am aware.

This doesn't make it any more legal - but I suspect that it's a case of risk 
assessment on a case by case basis.

One assessment could be that the Linux authors are not likely to sue for 
copyright violation because they'll never get together and agree to enforece 
the GPL in this scenario, due to such differing opinions.

There are many instances of companies either ignoring the GPL license for 
their Linux-derived products, or at least not providing source for kernel 
modules they develop to support their proprietary hardware.

Just look at where Linux is embedded it consumer electronics (cellphones, 
DVD players etc) and how many of those are shipped with GPL license, source 
code or the required offer of source code.

>From time when a GPL violation is brought out into the open on Slahsdot, 
this mailing list or elsewhere. There is never any concerted effort by Linux 
authors to defend the copyright and insist on GPL compliance.

Part of the problem is that for Linux, copyright is not assigned back to any 
one person or entity therefore it's more difficult for any individual to try 
and 'fight the cause' of GPL compliance. Another problem is that Linux is 
global, and many of the binary-only vendors are in the far-east where the 
culture is perhaps less concerned about copyright law, US or otherwise.

So it seems that there is nothing do loose, anyone can take Linux and do 
whatever they please with it and not have to be particularly worried about 
contributing back to the community or complying with the rules of the 
commons, because nobody is likely to enforce the requirements against them.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <YPep.5Y5.21@gated-at.bofh.it>]
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-04 23:50 Paul Adams
  2003-12-05  0:07 ` Nick Piggin
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Paul Adams @ 2003-12-04 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

--- In linux-kernel@yahoogroups.com, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@o...> 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.

Remember also that U.S. copyright law states:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original
work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process,
system, method
of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of
the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or
embodied in such work."
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html
Thus you cannot claim infringement because a work
merely shares
ideas or methods of operation with Linux.

The standard used in U.S. courts for determining if
software
violates a copyright includes a filtering procedure to
eliminate
unprotected aspects as described above.  A standard
filter is that
you eliminate an element if "The element's expression
was dictated
by external factors, such as using an existing file
format or
interoperating with another program."  Computer
Associates v.
Altai specifically discusses the need to filter
elements related
to "compatibility requirements of other programs with
which a
program is designed to operate in conjunction."
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html
Code needed to interoperate with the Linux kernel thus
cannot be
considered as a factor in determining if the Linux
copyright is
infringed.

Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary
distribution
in some form, I don't see how you can claim
infringement of the
copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-05 11:35 Adam J. Richter
  2003-12-05 11:25 ` David Schwartz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 258+ messages in thread
From: Adam J. Richter @ 2003-12-05 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7883 bytes --]

	I am not a lawyer, so please do not rely on what I say as
legal advice.

	Even for proprietary Linux kernel modules that do not contain
a byte of GPL'ed code, I see at least two levels of potential copyright
infringement.  I think the conversation has largely missed the second,
and more important case: contributory infringment, but I really have
to start with the direct infringement to explain clearly.

	The direct infringement occurs occurs when a user creates an
infringing work in RAM, which I think is restrictable for works that
are licensed rather than sold due to the US 9th circuit federal
appeals court decision MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer [1]:

| [39] We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of 
| software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, 
| it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer 
| constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. See 
| e.g. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 260 (5th 
| Cir. 1988) ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage 
| into a computer's memory creates a copy of the program"); 2 Nimmer on 
| Copyright, § 8.08 at 8-105 (1983) ("Inputting a computer program 
| entails the preparation of a copy."); Final Report of the National 
| Commission on the New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, at 13 
| (1978) ("the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of 
| a copy"). We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling 
| since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether 
| the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only 
| memory ("ROM"). However, since we find that the copy created in the 
| RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold 
| that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the 
| Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm the district court's grant 
| of summary judgment as well as the permanent injunction as it relates 
| to this issue. 
[...]
| 5. Since MAI licensed its software, the Peak customers do
| not qualify as "owners" of the software and are not eligible for
| protection under § 117.
 
	I believe this standard was applied specifically to operating
systems by Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express [2].

	By the way, I believe the MAI decision was narrowed slightly
by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act[3], but only to allow third
party maintenance organizations to reboot computers that they maintain.

	These decisions apparently limit the copyright exception
originally recommended by the CONTU panel [4] for making it legal to
run copyrighted programs in RAM [5].

	Although I recnetly heard a copyright lawyer say that there
are a string of cases supporting the doctrine that copying to RAM is
restrictable by copyright, I should also point out that these are
cases that I turned up some time ago in a google search.  This may be
an example of how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  I do
not, for example, know what legal references the Free Software
Foundation used to convince NeXT Computer that they had to release the
source code to their Objective C GCC object files.


	The second, more practically restrictable, potential form of
infringement is contributory infringement by those who distribute
proprietary kernel modules, such as authors, FTP site maintainers,
vendors, and their employees.  Even if proprietary Linux kernel module
is shipped as an object which has other uses besides being linked into
Linux, it invariably requires "glue" code to work in Linux.  _Even
when the "glue" code is open source_, if it's only substantial use is
to form part of an infringing work in RAM, then it is a contributory
infringement device.  Here is a diagram to help illustrate:

		 -----------------------------------
		| Core Linux kernel:		    |
		| Covered by GPL and other          |
		| compatible free software licenses |
		 -----------------------------------
				|
				|
				|
				|
		 -----------------------------------
                | Glue code:                        |
		| Perhaps released under	    |
		| GPL-compatible license, but still |
	        | contributory infringement to      |
	        | distribute, because it has no     |
		| substantial non-infringing use.   |
		 -----------------------------------
				|
				|
				|
				|
		 -----------------------------------
		| Proprietary object: perhaps used  |
		| in drivers for other OS's too.    |
                | May have substantial              |
                | non-infringing use, and be legal  |
		| to distribute, but still direct   |
		| copyright infringement by end user|
		| to load into kernel.              |
		 -----------------------------------


	The glue code may be part of the proprietary module or may be
distributed as a separate middle layer module.  This code usually has
no "substantial non-infringing use", thereby failing the test
established for contributory copyright infringement from the 1984 US
Supreme court decision, Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City
Studios, Inc. [6], which basically set the common law test for
contributory copyright infringement to be the same as the statutory
standard for contributory patent infringement [7].

	Granted, it may be possible to write multi-purpose
GPL-compatible glue code, every byte of which has a substantial
non-infringing use.  For those cases, distribution might not be
restrictable, but it would still be copyright infringement by the end
user to load the module into a running Linux kernel.

	I am not claiming that these are the only possible legal
problems or potential copyright problems with proprietary kernel
modules.  There are other possible infringement scenarios, such as
direct infringement in proprietary source code that is comingled with
GPL'ed source code, or direct infringement in object code that
contains some GPL'ed inline routines.  Kernels running with
proprietary modules also might not be covered by the "free for GPL'ed
use" patent grants [8, 9, 10].

	I must reiterate, however, that I am not a lawyer.  So, please
do not rely on what I say as legal advice.  The most consequential
action that anyone should take based on this message is to ask a
lawyer about it.


[1] MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Ccomputer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (1993).
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/991_F2d_511.htm

[2] Triad Systems v. Southeastern Express, 64 F.3d 1330 (1995).
    http://www.eff.org/IP/triad_v_southeastern_64f3d1330_decision.html

[3] The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998.
    www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

[4] United States Code, Title 17 (Copyright), Section 117,
    (Limitation on exclusive rights: computer programs)
    http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/117.html

[5] Final Report of the National Commission on New Technology Uses
    [CONTU] of Copyrighted Works, chapter 3:
    http://digital-law-online.info/CONTU/contu6.html

[6] Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
    ("the betamax decision")
    http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

[7] For "substantial noninfringing use", see United States Code, Title 35
    (Patents) Section 271 (Infringement of Patent), paragraphs (c) and (f)(2).
    http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/271.html

[8] "Yodaiken clarifies the Open RTLinux Patent License"
    http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT6164867514.html

[9] "The RTLinux Open Patent License, version 2.0"
    http://www.fsmlabs.com/products/rtlinuxpro/rtlinux_patent.html

[10] "GPL patent grant for 19 patents"
     http://www.advogato.org/article/89.html


Adam J. Richter     __     ______________   575 Oroville Road
adam@yggdrasil.com     \ /                  Milpitas, California 95035
+1 408 309-6081         | g g d r a s i l   United States of America

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <732BE51FE9901143AE04411A11CC465602F155F3@evtexc02.tc.fluke.com>]
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-05 22:43 gary ng
  2003-12-05 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 258+ messages in thread
From: gary ng @ 2003-12-05 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-06 12:31 Matt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Matt @ 2003-12-06 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: torvalds; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List

Linus, your explanation of the whole copyright law and licenses is 
probably the best non-technical (ie non lawyer) explanation I have ever 
read. You guys over at OSDL must have a few good lawyers at your 
disposal :) Thank you very much for your input. Maybe someone should 
post a flow diagram, some use cases or something similarly programmish 
so the non english speaking of us can understand it better. 
libcopyright.so / liblicense.so / libcontract.so anyone? :)

    Matt



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-07  2:34 gary ng
  2003-12-08 16:08 ` Alex Bennee
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 258+ messages in thread
From: gary ng @ 2003-12-07  2:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

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/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-09  6:20 Paul Zimmerman
  2003-12-09 13:22 ` Andrew Walrond
  2003-12-10 14:17 ` Jesse Pollard
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Paul Zimmerman @ 2003-12-09  6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[ Date:  Sometime in the near future. ]

[ Scene:  Exterior of a Federal courthouse in a large city in the US.  Among
the cars parked in the lot are several dozen stretch limos, a Saab 9000
Turbo with a penguin bobble-head doll on the dashboard, and a '67 VW van
covered with "peace" symbols and sporting a bumper sticker that reads "Code
free or die!" ]

[ Scene:  Interior of said courthouse.  Seated at the plaintiff's table are
a gaggle of expensive-looking lawyers in expensive-looking suits.  Seated at
the defendant's table are Linus T, Alan C, Jeff G, Andrew M, David M, Al V,
Richard S, plus a host of other people whose names we might recognize.  And
one very nervous-looking, pimply-faced young lawyer who looks like he might
have graduated from law school sometime last week. ]

[ Lawyer for NVidia: ]  "... And in conclusion, Your Honor, we have
established that for many years our company sold graphics cards to users of
the Windows, Mac, and Linux operating systems, in each case providing a
binary graphics driver to make our card work with that OS. Then, without
warning, the defendants" [ angrily points his finger at the defendant's
table ] "conspired to arrange so that our drivers would no longer work with
the Linux OS. We have already demonstrated that, around the same time, our
company's revenues began to decline, caused in large part, we believe, by
the defendants' actions.  We ask for $1 billion in damages."

[ Judge - banging gavel: ]  "You've convinced me.  I order a summary
judgement for the amount requested, plus $2 billion punitive damages."

[ Cut to:  Bedroom of a comfortable house in the suburbs.  Nighttime. ]

[ Linus - suddenly sits bolt upright in the bed, a horrified expression on
his face: ]  "AAAAiiiiiiieeeeeeeeaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!"

[ Wife - shaking Linus' shoulder: ]  "Honey, wake up, wake up!  I think
you're having that horrible nightmare again!"

And that is why binary drivers will always be allowed under Linux.

-p


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-10 19:06 Manfred Spraul
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Manfred Spraul @ 2003-12-10 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel, Andre Hedrick

Linus wrote:

>Everything else, you need to convince _your_ lawyers that it is ok before
>you do it. They may say "go ahead". But you're not getting a "get out of
>jail" card from _me_.
>  
>
The main danger for a binary-only module are not the developers or Linux 
companies, but litigation companies (SCO?): They have the lawyers, they 
either own or could buy some copyright of the kernel, and they don't 
have a reputation that they would loose.
But they would probably settle for a (large) fraction of the court cost 
to prove your case, so there is little danger to get into jail for 
criminal copyright infringement...

--
    Manfred


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <fa.go3ahvi.h68o2q@ifi.uio.no>]
* Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
@ 2003-12-18  9:12 Randy Zagar
  2003-12-18  9:51 ` Thorsten Glaser
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 258+ messages in thread
From: Randy Zagar @ 2003-12-18  9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2827 bytes --]

Sorry to be such a late-comer to this thread, but I think there is a way
to slice this without leaving lots of blood on the floor...  only just a
little.

As I see it, this whole problem about kernel headers revolves around the
argument that the header files are copyrighted and licensed under the
GPL, so if you incorporate portions of the kernel headers in your binary
module then it's considered a derivative work and must be GPL'd.

I have no problem with this, provided that the fragments of the header
files that make it through the compiler can actually have a valid
copyright.

The one example that was mentioned in the thread was the fact that the
phone book is copyrighted, but the phone numbers are not.  The factual
content is not copyright-able.

The other example, not mentioned in this thread is Westlaw.  They take
public court documents, annotate them, and publish them with page
numbers and page references.  The publication page references are their
contribution to the work and they've been able to maintain their
monopoly by squashing people who re-publish their page references
without their permission.

Here's the catch.  If I took one of their books, removed all page
references, made 10,000 copies, and sold it on the street for $10 per
copy they would not be able to sue me for copyright infringement because
I'm not distributing anything that they have copyrights to.

Same thing with the phone book.  If I ran the phone book through a
program and stripped out everything except the names and phone numbers,
I could repackage it, resell it, and never be guilty of copyright
infringement because all I did was redistribute something that couldn't
be copyrighted...  factual content.

My point is this:

Not all of the lines in a header file can have a valid copyright.... 
Some of the content is merely factual, and some other parts are trivial
math.  Programmer comments are definitely copyrightable, but those are
stripped out by the compiler.

The question boils down to this:

For a header file, does anything truly worthy of copyright actually
survive the compilation process?

If the answer is no, then a binary module cannot be a derivative work. 
If the answer is yes, then it is.

The only way we're ever going to get a definitive answer is when this
actually goes to court.

But I don't think the answer will be very illuminating...  It'll be like
the time a Jesuit asked Richard Feynman if electricity was a form of
fire, Feynman answered no, but it turns out the Jesuit was only asking
the question so he would know whether or not it was moral to push
elevator buttons on the sabbath.

My $0.02,

-RZ

p.s.  The first thing I'm going to do after I build my time machine is
go visit Finland and say "Use the LGPL, Linus".


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 258+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-12-19  8:03 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 258+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-03 21:31 Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Kendall Bennett
2003-12-03 21:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-12-03 23:33   ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-03 22:11 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-12-03 23:33   ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-03 23:40   ` bill davidsen
2003-12-04  0:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-04  0:23   ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-04  6:25     ` Karim Yaghmour
2003-12-06  0:08       ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-06  2:28         ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-06  9:55           ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-06 10:51             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-12-08 18:58         ` Karim Yaghmour
2003-12-09 20:26           ` bill davidsen
2003-12-09 21:46             ` Craig Milo Rogers
2003-12-12 11:36               ` Jamie Lokier
2003-12-12 15:27                 ` Bill Davidsen
2003-12-10 14:09         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 14:25           ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-10 14:46             ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 15:05               ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-10 15:11                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 15:49                   ` Aron Rubin
2003-12-10 15:59                   ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-10 16:06                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 16:22                       ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-10 18:38                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-04 19:24     ` viro
2003-12-13  0:11       ` Nix
2003-12-13  0:25         ` viro
2003-12-13 15:01           ` Nix
2003-12-04  0:29   ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-04  0:52   ` Aaron Smith
2003-12-04  1:47     ` David Lang
2003-12-04  1:20       ` Aaron Smith
2003-12-04  4:48       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-12-04 15:21   ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-04 15:58     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05  1:58     ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05  2:43       ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-05 13:09         ` Pat Erley
2003-12-05 18:44         ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-10 13:06         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-05 13:49       ` Maciej Zenczykowski
2003-12-10 13:43         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 16:07           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 18:33             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 19:20               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 20:15                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 21:04                   ` Ingo Molnar
2003-12-10 21:05                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 21:17                       ` Ingo Molnar
2003-12-10 22:59                         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-11  0:58                           ` Rob Love
2003-12-11 10:56                           ` Xavier Bestel
2003-12-11  7:26             ` Rob Landley
2003-12-05 17:29   ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-05 17:50     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-03 22:58 Xose Vazquez Perez
2003-12-03 23:22 Jason Kingsland
     [not found] <YPep.5Y5.21@gated-at.bofh.it>
     [not found] ` <Z3AK-Qw-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-12-04 17:05   ` Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
2003-12-04 17:57     ` Thierry Vignaud
2003-12-05 11:11     ` Helge Hafting
2003-12-05 12:12       ` Stefan Smietanowski
2003-12-05 14:51         ` Ihar 'Philips' Filipau
2003-12-04 23:50 Paul Adams
2003-12-05  0:07 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-05  2:07   ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-05 15:57     ` Thierry Vignaud
2003-12-05  4:23   ` Peter Chubb
2003-12-05  4:42     ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-05  8:23       ` Peter Chubb
2003-12-05 17:19         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05 18:42           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2003-12-05  5:13     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-12-05  5:26       ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-05  6:34       ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05  6:58         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05 11:16           ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05 13:34             ` Anders Karlsson
2003-12-05 14:03             ` Ryan Anderson
2003-12-05 16:38               ` Shawn Willden
2003-12-05 16:54                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-12-05 17:03                   ` Shawn Willden
2003-12-05 22:36                   ` Derek Fawcus
2003-12-05 17:34                 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05 17:35               ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-05 18:12                 ` Filip Van Raemdonck
2003-12-05 18:37                   ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-05 19:56                     ` 'Filip Van Raemdonck'
2003-12-05 20:26                       ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-06  0:08                         ` Filip Van Raemdonck
2003-12-05 19:55               ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05 20:14                 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05 21:16                   ` Shawn Willden
2003-12-08 15:38                 ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-05 14:59             ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-05 19:15               ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-05 18:44           ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-05 19:09             ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-12-05 19:22               ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-12-10 13:52                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 15:18                   ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 15:32                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 16:21                       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 16:34                         ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 17:10                           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 17:25                             ` Chris Friesen
2003-12-10 17:58                               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 17:56                             ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 18:02                               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 18:08                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 18:17                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 18:38                                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 19:15                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 18:37                                   ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-12-10 19:51                                 ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-10 20:09                                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-11  1:24                               ` Andrew Pimlott
2003-12-11  7:43                               ` Rob Landley
2003-12-11  8:11                                 ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-11  8:37                                   ` Rob Landley
2003-12-11 18:22                                     ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-11 21:20                                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-11 21:59                                       ` Rob Landley
2003-12-11 22:42                                         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-12  5:39                                           ` Rob Landley
2003-12-12  7:21                                             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-12  7:39                                               ` Rob Landley
2003-12-12  7:56                                                 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-12  9:27                                                   ` Rob Landley
2003-12-10 18:14                             ` David Schwartz
2003-12-10 18:21                               ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 19:48                             ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-11  7:32                           ` Rob Landley
2003-12-11 14:03                             ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-12-10 22:49                         ` Oliver Hunt
2003-12-10 17:15                     ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-10 17:42                       ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 19:32                         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 22:43                           ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-10 22:49                             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 23:11                           ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 23:24                             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 19:48                         ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-10 21:15                           ` viro
2003-12-10 22:36                             ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-10 23:13                               ` viro
2003-12-11 15:29                               ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-11 18:47                                 ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-11 18:55                                   ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-11 22:18                                   ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-10 22:18                           ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 22:25                             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 23:38                             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-11  1:03                               ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-11 14:46                                 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-12-10 23:39                             ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-12-11 17:44                             ` Robin Rosenberg
2003-12-11 17:56                               ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-12-11 18:16                                 ` Nick Piggin
2003-12-11 18:50                                 ` Mihai RUSU
2003-12-11 18:37                               ` David Schwartz
2003-12-11 12:04                         ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-10 17:49                       ` Jörn Engel
2003-12-10 18:16                     ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-05 19:25               ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-05 19:26             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05 15:50         ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-12-05 18:44         ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-06  0:02           ` Maciej Zenczykowski
2003-12-05 18:44       ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-10 13:16       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 15:02         ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-10 20:37           ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-12-11 16:26             ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-05 13:52   ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-12-05  0:09 ` Oliver Hunt
2003-12-05 10:55   ` Russell King
2003-12-05  0:46 ` Erik Andersen
2003-12-05  0:58   ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-12-05  1:03     ` Erik Andersen
2003-12-05  1:21       ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-05  1:30         ` Hua Zhong
2003-12-05  1:58         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-06  3:00           ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-06  4:39             ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-06  5:14               ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-06  5:48                 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-06 17:14                   ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-06 15:38                 ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-12-06 16:47                   ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-06 21:30                   ` David Schwartz
2003-12-06 21:42                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-07 13:01               ` Ingo Molnar
2003-12-07 22:11                 ` Rob Landley
2003-12-06 14:13             ` Andrew Pimlott
2003-12-06 17:50               ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-06 21:19                 ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-12-06 21:45                   ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-08 16:34                 ` Andrew Pimlott
2003-12-11 12:37           ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-11 12:42             ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-11 12:58               ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-12 20:26                 ` Brian Beattie
2003-12-13 12:03                   ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-13 15:04                     ` jeff millar
2003-12-13 17:27                     ` Gene Heskett
2003-12-11 13:54             ` Andrew Pimlott
2003-12-11 15:12               ` David Woodhouse
2003-12-05  3:58         ` Jason Kingsland
2003-12-05  1:58   ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05  4:58     ` Erik Andersen
2003-12-05  6:34       ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05  6:43         ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-05  2:07   ` Kendall Bennett
2003-12-05  7:39     ` Stefan Smietanowski
2003-12-05  1:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 12:57   ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-10 15:14     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-10 15:25       ` Larry McVoy
2003-12-10 18:58         ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-12 19:40     ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-12 22:08       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-12 23:06         ` Jamie Lokier
2003-12-12 23:43         ` Pavel Machek
2003-12-15 18:01     ` Adam Sampson
2003-12-15 21:12       ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-05 11:35 Adam J. Richter
2003-12-05 11:25 ` David Schwartz
2003-12-05 15:36   ` Valdis.Kletnieks
     [not found] <732BE51FE9901143AE04411A11CC465602F155F3@evtexc02.tc.fluke.com>
2003-12-05 17:05 ` David Dyck
2003-12-05 18:51   ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-05 22:43 gary ng
2003-12-05 23:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-12-06  0:07   ` gary ng
2003-12-06 12:31 Matt
2003-12-07  2:34 gary ng
2003-12-08 16:08 ` Alex Bennee
2003-12-08 16:26   ` gary ng
2003-12-09  6:20 Paul Zimmerman
2003-12-09 13:22 ` Andrew Walrond
2003-12-09 14:12   ` Dale Whitchurch
2003-12-09 20:47     ` bill davidsen
2003-12-09 23:47     ` David Schwartz
2003-12-10 14:30     ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-10 14:17 ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-10 16:10   ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-12-10 17:58   ` Andre Hedrick
2003-12-11 15:01     ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-10 19:06 Manfred Spraul
     [not found] <fa.go3ahvi.h68o2q@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.nk4vl6d.g0181@ifi.uio.no>
2003-12-12  3:03   ` walt
2003-12-18  9:12 Randy Zagar
2003-12-18  9:51 ` Thorsten Glaser
2003-12-18  9:55 ` Daniel Newby
2003-12-18 14:24 ` Jesse Pollard
2003-12-19  7:56 ` Andre Hedrick

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).