Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Nick Piggin
2003-12-05T00:27:20Z

Paul Adams wrote:

>--- In linux-kernel@yahoogroups.com, Linus Torvalds
><torvalds@o...> wrote:
>
>>- anything that was written with Linux in mind
>>
>(whether it then
>
>>_also_ works on other operating systems or not) is
>>
>clearly
>
>>partially a derived work.
>>
>
>I am no more a lawyer than you are, but I have to
>disagree. You
>are not free to define "derivative work" as you
>please. You
>must use accepted legal definitions. At least in the
>U.S., you
>must consider what Congress had to say on this. They
>said, "to
>constitute a violation of section 106(2) [which gives
>copyright
>owners rights over derivative works], the infringing
>work must
>incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some
>form; for
>example, a detailed commentary on a work or a
>programmatic musical
>composition inspired by a novel would not normally
>constitute
>infringements under this clause."
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.notes.html
>
>A work that is inspired by Linux is no more a
>derivative work than
>a programmatic musical composition inspired by a
>novel. Having
>Linux in mind cannot be enough to constitute
>infringement.
>

Of course not, thought police aren't any good until a mind reader
is invented ;)

Seriously:
What about specifically a module that includes the Linux Kernel's
headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you could say that is
definitely not a derivative work.