From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:35:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:35:26 -0400 Received: from [209.249.10.20] ([209.249.10.20]:15495 "EHLO ns1.yggdrasil.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 25 May 2001 22:35:18 -0400 From: "Adam J. Richter" Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 19:34:57 -0700 Message-Id: <200105260234.TAA15586@baldur.yggdrasil.com> To: lm@bitmover.com Subject: Re: Fwd: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h Cc: aaronl@vitelus.com, acahalan@cs.uml.edu, dledford@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Larry McVoy writes: >On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:02:08AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: >> If you want to argue that a court will use a different definition >> of aggregation, then please explain why and quote that definition. Also, >> it's important not to forget the word "mere." If the combination is anything >> *more* than aggregration, then it's not _merely_ aggregation. So, >> if you wanted to argue from the definition on webster.com: >Adam, the point is not what the GPL says or what the definition is. >The point is "what is legal". You can, for example, write a license >which says > By running the software covered by this license, you agree to > become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring > me coffee each morning for the rest of my life, greating > me with a "Good morning, master, here is your coffee oh > most magnificent one". >If anyone is stupid enough to obey such a license, they need help. >The problem is that licenses can write whatever they want, but what they >say only has meaning if it is enforceable. The "license" above would >be found to be unenforceable by the courts in about 30 seconds or so. Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation of a binding contract in your example, because the proposed mode of acceptance (related to the pointers I provided before) is doing something that you might have the right to do regardless of copyright (running the program as opposed to distributing copies). I believe that people write contracts all the time that prohibit distribution of certain works with others, for marketing reasons. >OK, so what does this have to do with aggregration? The prevailing >legal opinions seem to be that viral licenses cannot extend their >terms across boundaries. We're not talking about mythically changing the copyright status of another work. If your opinion is "prevailing" please include a reference to a section of the US code, a court decision or some reference that one could actually track down. By the way, I have asked a lawyer at an IP litigation firm that we use about this and he indicated the copyright infringement case was quite strong. Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104 adam@yggdrasil.com \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034 +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America fax +1 408 261-6631 "Free Software For The Rest Of Us."