Re: Can't use SYSFS for "Proprietry" driver modules !!!.

Adrian Bunk
2005-03-28T01:39:11Z

On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:54:52PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 00:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > How do you define "proven in court"?
> >
> > Decided by an US judge based on US laws?
> > Decided by a German judge based on German laws?
> > Decided by a Chinese judge based on Chinese laws?
> > ...
> >
>
> OK, I was talking about US courts since that case was done in the US.
> But this is all what I remember about reading some 10 years ago. So I
> could be all wrong about what happened. I don't have any references and
> I'm too busy now to look them up. So I may be just speaking out of my
> ass. :-)
>
> > If you distribute software you can be sued in every country you
> > distribute it.
> >
> > E.g. Harald Welte is currently quite successful with legal actions in
> > Germany against companies that distribute Linux-based routers in Germany
> > without offering the source of the GPL'ed software they use.
>
> Your talking about something completely different. Yes, it is quite
> explicit if you modify the source, and distribute it in binary only
> form. I'm talking about writing a separate module that links with the
> GPL code dynamically. So that the code is compiled different from the
> GPL code. So the only common part is the API. Now is this a derived
> work?
>...

My point was a bit different:

Harald's action was meant as an example, that such things can be brought
to court in virtually every country in the world.

And a court decision in e.g. the USA might not have any influence on a
court decision in e.g. Germany.

Some people seem to think that it was enough if something was OK
according to US law - but that's simply wrong.

> -- Steve

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed