public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>
Cc: dledford@redhat.com, aaronl@vitelus.com, acahalan@cs.uml.edu,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:30:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010525113038.C3225@work.bitmover.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200105251702.KAA23819@adam.yggdrasil.com>
In-Reply-To: <200105251702.KAA23819@adam.yggdrasil.com>; from adam@yggdrasil.com on Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:02:08AM -0700

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.

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.  The aggregration verbage is alluding to that
boundary.  If it is true that viral licenses cannot cross some sort of
boundary (and obviously it is true, otherwise the system call boundary
would not be recognized and all programs ever run on Linux would be GPLed),
then the GPL doesn't get to say what it means by that boundary, the law
gets to say that.  Just like the above "license" doesn't get to create
slaves, some issues are outside the license scope.

I've spoken with my lawyer in depth about this and the feeling is that
there are boundaries which licenses may not cross, and the definition
of such a boundary is one where you could remove the code on one side
of the boundary (aka interface), replace it with completely different 
code, and get substantially the same behaviour.  A device driver is a
good example.  
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2001-05-25 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-05-25 17:02 Fwd: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h Adam J. Richter
2001-05-25 17:23 ` Jacob Luna Lundberg
2001-05-25 18:30 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2001-05-25 22:30   ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-26  1:43     ` Larry McVoy
2001-05-25 19:14 ` Doug Ledford
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-05-29  1:38 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-26 11:09 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-26  3:10 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-26 11:00 ` James Sutherland
2001-05-29  0:03   ` Jamie Lokier
2001-05-29  0:24     ` Alan Cox
2001-05-29  0:55       ` Jamie Lokier
2001-05-26  2:34 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-26  2:38 ` Larry McVoy
2001-05-26  4:52 ` Jeff V. Merkey
2001-05-25 10:36 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-25  9:34 Adam J. Richter
2001-05-25 16:06 ` Doug Ledford
     [not found] <200105250559.f4P5x80365151@saturn.cs.uml.edu>
2001-05-25  6:03 ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-25  6:34   ` Alexander Viro
2001-05-25  6:42     ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-25  6:58       ` Alexander Viro
2001-05-25  7:02       ` Andreas Jaeger
2001-05-25  7:05         ` Alexander Viro
2001-05-25 10:56     ` Erik Mouw
2001-05-25 11:56       ` Alexander Viro
2001-05-25 12:44     ` Pavel Machek
     [not found] <mailman.990765360.7016.linux-kernel2news@redhat.com>
2001-05-25  6:02 ` Pete Zaitcev
     [not found] <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105242155540.4849-100000@beppo.feral.com>
2001-05-25  5:57 ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-25  6:26   ` Matthew Jacob
2001-05-25  6:31     ` Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-25  4:34 Aaron Lehmann
2001-05-25  5:07 ` Greg KH
2001-05-25 10:00 ` John Cavan
2001-05-25 11:10   ` Alan Cox
2001-05-25 16:17 ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20010525113038.C3225@work.bitmover.com \
    --to=lm@bitmover.com \
    --cc=aaronl@vitelus.com \
    --cc=acahalan@cs.uml.edu \
    --cc=adam@yggdrasil.com \
    --cc=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox