Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Nick Piggin
2003-12-05T05:02:06Z

Peter Chubb wrote:

>>>>>>"Nick" == Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>Nick> Paul Adams wrote:
>
>
>Nick> Seriously: What about specifically a module that includes the
>Nick> Linux Kernel's headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you
>Nick> could say that is definitely not a derivative work.
>
>As far as I know, interfacing to a published API doesn't infringe
>copyright.
>

So binary modules don't infringe copyright and aren't derived works?
If so then the way to control access to the kernel is to control the
"published API" ie. the api/abi exported modules, and exceptions for
GPL modules are useless. Hmm.

>
>Note:
>
>
>Paul> A standard filter is that you eliminate an element if "The
>Paul> element's expression was dictated by external factors, such as
>Paul> using an existing file format or interoperating with another
>Paul> program." Computer Associates v. Altai specifically discusses
>Paul> the need to filter elements related to "compatibility
>Paul> requirements of other programs with which a program is designed
>Paul> to operate in conjunction."
>Paul> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html
>
>
>If you don't accept this, then maybe you have to start accepting SCO's
>claims on JFS, XFS, &c.
>

Not quite sure what you mean here. As far as I was aware, SCO doesn't
have any copyrights or patents on any code in the Linux Kernel so it is
not a similar situation. I haven't followed the SCO thing closely though.