From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263798AbTLECA3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:00:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263796AbTLECAZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 21:00:25 -0500 Received: from mail.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.131]:64232 "EHLO shell.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263793AbTLEB7M (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:59:12 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: , "Paul Adams" Cc: Subject: RE: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20031205004653.GA7385@codepoet.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Thu Dec 04, 2003 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Paul Adams wrote: > > Unless actual Linux code is incorporated in a binary > > distribution > > in some form, I don't see how you can claim > > infringement of the > > copyright on Linux code, at least in the U.S. > A kernel module is useless without a Linux kernel in which it can > be loaded. Once loaded, it becomes not merely an adjunct, but an > integrat part of the Linux kernel. There you go, *ONCE* *LOADED* it becomes an integral part. So it's the *use* of it that makes it integral. Disitribution is prior to use. > Further, it clearly > "incorporate[s] a portion of the copyrighted work" since it > can only operate within the context of the kernel by utilizing > Linux kernel function calls. Except the kernel function calls are not copyrighted, only their implementation is. If you really meant what you're saying, any program that used 'malloc' would be a derived work of any implementation of 'malloc'. > To abuse your earlier metaphor, a kernel module is not comparable > to a programmatic musical composition inspired by a novel. It is > better comparared with another novel with substantial similarity > in the theme, plot, sequence, settings, mood, dialogue, and > characters, with the same story being told, with trademarked > phrases and taglines, and that makes no sense whatsoever unless > you insert it's entire content over the top of page 450, > paragraph 4 (of the Linux "novel"), and which thereby changes > the ending of the original book... So long as it must be mixed with the original work (and isn't already), it's not clear that it's a derived work as it sits. Again, otherwise any program that used 'malloc' would be a derived work of any implementation of 'malloc'. DS