Dave Neuer wrote:
Interacting with the kernel does not make your software a derived work.
That may or may not be true, depending on the nature of the
interaction, and the arbiter of truth in this case is the court
system, not you or I.
That is correct, the final decision is up to a Judge, but we aren't in
court here, we're discussing it, and so I'm making an argument that I
believe any sane judge would side with.
There are no dearth of legal opinions on this matter which differ
quite radically from your interpretation here, quite a few from
lawyers. As far as I am concerned (and the GPL too, if my
interpretation of it is correct), any code is a derived work of my
code if either a) it directly makes use of symbols in my code or b) it
cannot execute unless my code executes, such that its distribution
without my code would be useless.
As you said above, your opinion doesn't matter, only the law and a
judge's interpretation of it, and the law says no such thing. Take a
look at USC Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications,
which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”.
No mention of either of your two conditions. You _might_ be able to
argue that they use your headers to compile their driver, so that
violates your copyright, but they are free to develop their own
compatible headers to produce compatible binaries which are in no way
derived from the Linux kernel. See Wine's win32 compatible headers and
libraries for examples of this.
This is why it is legal to reverse engineer a binary driver to gain an
understanding of how the hardware operates, publish that information,
and then use that information to create new software to operate that
hardware.
No, you are referring to a restriction on the limitations in software
licenses which is separate from copyright. Copyright law does not talk
about interoperability at all. And even the applicability of the
restriction to which you refer is jurisdiction-dependant as well as
context-dependant (see the DMCA).
No, licenses do not enter the picture at all, I am referring to the Fair
Use clause of the copyright act and the body of precedence built on it.
Title 17 specifically states that the study of a copyright work falls
under fair use and therefore, is not an infringement. Reverse
engineering is a form of study, and thus is protected as fair use.
Copyright does not apply to a _process_ ( that's patents ), only to the
particular expression, therefore, it has been well established in the
courts that it is not infringing to create a new unique expression that
serves the same purpose and engages in the same process. This is why it
is legal to reverse engineer a windows binary only driver to figure out
the hardware interface, and write your own driver for linux.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
