From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267592AbUH0TiT (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:38:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267584AbUH0Th3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:37:29 -0400 Received: from [195.23.16.24] ([195.23.16.24]:27324 "EHLO bipbip.comserver-pie.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267600AbUH0Te4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:34:56 -0400 Message-ID: <412F8CDD.7030107@grupopie.com> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:34:53 +0100 From: Paulo Marques Organization: Grupo PIE User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Albert Cahalan Cc: linux-kernel mailing list , greg@kroah.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal References: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> In-Reply-To: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira MailArmor (version: 2.0.1.16; VAE: 6.27.0.6; VDF: 6.27.0.35; host: bipbip) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Albert Cahalan wrote: > Paulo Marques writes: > > >>About the legal aspects of all this, they have been >>discussed extensively in the past. It is not about >>"hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about >>the derived work concept. This driver does absolutely >>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to >>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images >>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's. >>So you can not say it is not a derived work at all. > > > (note: the following is not legal advice) > > I think you'll find that this is not supported by > the copyright law, at least in the United States and > in any sane country. > > Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your > interpretation, at least when it serves them, but > that doesn't make it the law. You're completely missing the point. I never said that the pwcx driver copies code from the kernel, and in doing so infringes copyright law. What I'm saying is that the kernel is distributed with a license that allows you certain rights, and that extending the kernel functionality through closed source drivers is not one of those rights. > What protectable elements of the kernel have been > included within the driver? I don't see any. > Like we say to SCO, where are the lines of code? > Remember, nobody is distributing a kernel with > this driver linked in. Merely loading the driver > is obviously fair use of the kernel. > > (BTW, something which is required for operation > is not protectable. See the Sega v. Accolade case. > Thus, mere usage of header files won't do. You > couldn't even use the C header files on any UNIX > system if that were the case. Let's not be silly.) You're being silly, I've never said anything about header files, nor copied lines of code. > Is it "non-literal copying" that concerns you? > Heh. OK. Name the jurisdiction you like, and > describe the copyright infringement test accepted > by the courts in that jurisdiction. > > For example, the US 10th Circuit uses the "abstraction, > filtration, comparison" test. The US 9th Circuit uses > the "Analytic Dissection" test. There are others. > I don't know of any such test under which the > closed-source part of the driver could be considered > to be a derived work of the Linux kernel. I can hardly > imagine one that would make the driver derived without > also making Linux derived from UNIX! > > So anyway... where are the lines of code? It is a derived work, not a "copied" work. The point is: >>This driver does absolutely >>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to >>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images >>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's. In the case of a nvidia driver (for instance) one can argue that the driver was written for another well known closed source operating system, and was latter ported to Linux, so that we can not honestly say that it is a derived work. Anyway, this is all a big gray area, with darker and lighter tones of gray. So you only get a definite answer in front of a judge. This whole discussion has been beaten to death in the past. I really don't want to go through that again. Although I have not been directly involved in the past discussion, the traffic in LKML is high enough that it doesn't need another one of those threads... -- Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer. Farmers' Almanac, 1978