It bears repeating that the GPL is a *copyright* licence. [LWN.net]

It bears repeating that the GPL is a copyright licence.

Posted Oct 28, 2005 1:13 UTC (Fri) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322)
In reply to: Quote of the week: Free kernel drivers by Duncan
Parent article: Quote of the week

Let's point out again that the GPL is a licence to copy.

And let's suppose (by the platform-independence argument above) that most
device drivers are not derivative works of the kernel.

The issue of GPL-incompatible licences on kernel modules applies only to
people who wish to copy the kernel. The act of linking a module to the
running kernel does not actually copy the kernel. To the extent that
*linking* creates a derivative work (the new kernel complete with the
module), copyright law prohibits the publication of such a linked kernel
if the licences are not compatible. But doing an insmod on your own
machine isn't publishing a kernel and ought to come under 'fair
use' (DMCA provisions and XBoxes notwithstanding).

So the legal question marks aren't hanging over developers of proprietary
modules or developers of GPL code, but distribution vendors who wish to
distribute the two together in a package. Does distribution of a disc
which is a 'mere aggregation' of several pieces of code which, by design,
will be linked into one 'derivative work' when loaded into a computer,
constitute a distribution of the derivative work?

(Log in to post comments)

It bears repeating that the GPL is a *copyright* licence.

Posted Oct 29, 2005 0:53 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I have heard that one of the exlusive privileges the copyright owner has is to "prepare derivative works," and that that doesn't just mean to copy the derivative work. I've heard it said that even if you want to create a derivative work for your own personal amusement, you need permission from the copyright owner. Seems out of place in copyright law, but I've seen the US statute, and it really does say "prepare."

In 1998, a person was editing Titanic video tapes to remove the sex and make it watchable by some very sensitive people. A person would bring him his own copy of the tape and the editor would clip out some of the tape and charge him $5. The copyright owner of Titanic claimed it was a copyright violation. I don't think there was ever an authoritative resolution.

(If you're a Titanic fan, I know you want to know where the indecent scenes are in it: there are two: one where Dicaprio sketches Winslet in the nude and you see her breasts, and another where they have sex in a car with steamed up windows).