From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264333AbTLKBjX (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:39:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264303AbTLKBjM (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:39:12 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39]:32653 "EHLO rwcrmhc13.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264347AbTLKBh7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:37:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:24:58 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Message-ID: <20031211012458.GA27531@pimlott.net> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Larry McVoy , Linus Torvalds , Larry McVoy , Andre Hedrick , Arjan van de Ven , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Kendall Bennett References: <20031210153254.GC6896@work.bitmover.com> <20031210163425.GF6896@work.bitmover.com> <20031210175614.GH6896@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031210175614.GH6896@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: Andrew Pimlott Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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