From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263178AbTLKV24 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:28:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262772AbTLKV24 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:28:56 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:3596 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263178AbTLKV2y (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:28:54 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:20:48 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Rob Landley cc: hzhong@cisco.com, "'Larry McVoy'" , "'Linus Torvalds'" , "'Arjan van de Ven'" , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "'Kendall Bennett'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? In-Reply-To: <200312110237.42998.rob@landley.net> Message-ID: 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 Rob, Help me out? Who is cloning what ? I am talking about original works, to talking about talking somebody's stuff out of the kernel, hacking it up and distributing the work as an original (that is clearly a derived work). So your arguement is bogus, try again. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 11 December 2003 02:11, Hua Zhong wrote: > > > For one thing, the plugin was made by someone without access > > > to Netscape or IE's source code, using a documented interface > > > that contained sufficient information to do the job without access > > > to that source code. > > > > > > Yes, it matters. > > > > _What_ matters? > > > > Open source? (if you write a plugin for an opensource > > kernel/application, you are not plugin anymore and you are derived > > work.) I am sure you don't mean it. > > > > Documented interface? Hey, there are sources which are the best > > documentation. :-) > > If you write software by referring to documentation, the barrier for it being > a derivative work is higher than if you write it by looking at another > implementation. > > > Seriously, even if I accept that there is never an intent to support a > > stable ABI for kernel modules, some vendor can easily claim that "we > > support a stable ABI, so write kernel modules for the kernel we > > distribute". > > > > Anything can prevent that? I cannot see GPL disallow it. > > > > So OK, Linus and other kernel developers never intended to provide a > > stable ABI, but someone else could. The original author's intent is > > never relevant anymore. This is the goodness of opensource, isn't it? > > Once upon a time, Compaq did a clean-room clone of IBM's BIOS. Group 1 > studied the original bios and wrote up a spec, and group 2 wrote a new bios > from that spec, and group 1 never spoke to group 2, and all of this was > extensively documented so that when IBM sued them they proved in court that > their BIOS wasn't derived from IBM's. (Of course compaq used vigin > programmers fresh out of college who'd never seen a PC before, which was a > lot easier to do in 1983...) > > I didn't make this up. This was a really big deal 20 years ago. It happened, > and it mattered, and people cared that they created a fresh implementation > without seeing the original code, entirely from a written specification that > was not a derivative work of the first implementation, so no matter how > similar the second implementation was (hand-coded assembly performing the > same functions on the same processor in the same amount of space), it could > not be considered a derivative work. > > This was a strong enough defense to beat IBM's lawyers, who were trying to > claim that Compaq's new BIOS WAS a derivative work... > > Rob >