Does private interface use implies derivation ?

Does private interface use implies derivation ?

Posted Nov 1, 2002 6:20 UTC (Fri) by slumbukken (guest, #6937)
Parent article: Proprietary kernel modules - the boundary shifts?

The concept that "new MODULE that interfaces with old MODULE through its private interface" is necessarily a derived work and covered by the copy-rights of the "old MODULE" seems to fail the absurdity test.

eg SAMBA is a derived work of prior Microsoft networking OSes and hence the copyright of SAMBA is Microsoft's to exploit. The interfaces Samba deals with were never open and the code that implements them in the old MODULE is not copyright free.

eg the clean room reimplementations of the IBM-PC Bios which implement interfaces required to support the original PC motherboard are at the mercy of IBM. Actually - I am confused here - maybe the interfaces are again owned by Microsoft via MS-DOS?

eg software that uses Microsoft 'secret' internal interfaces of Windows-XX are the property of Microsoft.

There is a long tradition of 'interaction' by reverse engineering of the interfaces of other companies products. Primarily the smaller companies products interacting with the pre-existing dominant product of a near monopoly.

---

(Log in to post comments)