From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 26 May 2001 07:18:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 26 May 2001 07:18:12 -0400 Received: from [209.10.41.242] ([209.10.41.242]:46565 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 26 May 2001 07:18:02 -0400 From: "Adam J. Richter" Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 04:09:13 -0700 Message-Id: <200105261109.EAA08552@baldur.yggdrasil.com> To: jas88@cam.ac.uk 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, lm@bitmover.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Sutherland wrote: >On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote: >> Larry McVoy wrote: >> >On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: >> >It's also about the concept of boundaries - if you think that that >> >concept is not a legal one then why aren't all programs which are run >> >on top of a GPLed kernel then GPLed? >> >> Apparently Linus felt that that was a sufficiently >> plausible gray area that he addressed it explicitly in >> /usr/src/linux/COPYING: >> >> | NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel >> | services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use >> | of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". >> | Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software >> | Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux >> | kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it. >Note the "derived work"; there is no way on this earth (or any other) that >you could regard the device's firmware as being a "derived work" of the >driver! AFAICS, the firmware is just a file served up to the device as >needed - no more a derivative work from the kernel than my homepage is a >derivative work of Apache. Nobody is arguing that it is illegal to copy the keyspan firmware by itself. What I think is clearly illegal is copying the whole keyspan .o file, not because it infringes the firmware copyrights, but because it infringes the GPL'ed material's copyrights. 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."