Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Andrew Pimlott]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:10:18AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > In short, your honour, this extra chapter without any meaning on its own
> > is a derived work of the book.
> 
> I see.  And your argument, had it prevailed 5 years ago, would have
> invalidated the following, would it not?  The following from one of the
> Microsoft lawsuits.
> 
> >From http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf
> 
>     Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft
>     may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any
>     "integrity of the work" argument. The United States recognizes "moral
>     rights" of attribution and integrity only for works of visual art
>     in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 U.S.C. 106A
>     and the definition of "work of visual art" in 17 U.S.C. 101.) A
>     bookstore can replace the last chapter of a mystery novel without
>     infringing its copyright, as long as they are not reprinting the
>     other chapters but are simply removing the last chapter and replacing
>     it with an alternative one, but must not pass the book off as the
>     original. Having a copyright in a work does not give that copyright
>     owner unlimited freedom in the terms he can impose.

You probably should have mentioned that this statement was made not
by a judge or a lawyer, but by a CS professor in an amicus curiae
brief.  And the implication that this argument had much to do with
the outcome of the Microsoft case--which was about antitrust and
bundling, not copyrights--is disingenuous.

> Start to see why I think what you are doing is dangerous and will backfire?

You are extrapolating way too far.  There are so many differences
between the Linux-module issue and the vague doomsday scenario you
are trying to conjure.  Linus explained one (coherence and stability
of the API/ABI), and I think it could be easily be cast as a test
that a court could apply.

Maybe you can describe a specific case in which Linus's argument
backfires?  I'm not saying you have no point at all, just that I
don't think this one thing is holding back the flood-waters.

Andrew
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/