Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Nick Piggin]

Peter Chubb wrote:

> > > > > > "Nick" == Nick Piggin <piggin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.


-
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/