| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Another counterexample?Another counterexample?Posted Jun 24, 2008 21:11 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: Another counterexample? by lrosen Parent article: A position statement on closed-source kernel modules Care to elaborate? Just an authority based on your authority (a second-hand authority if you will) is not a good argument on itself. Of course linking is not the concern of copyright, just as compiling isn't; as tialaramex explains below, it is writing code and distributing it (or a derived work such as the compiled binary) that can be doubtful. But is it the joint distribution of the linked code that makes software a derived work, or is it using internal interfaces, or what specifically? The MySQL and Qt examples would point to joint distribution, since those writing proprietary packages based on them usually rely on published interfaces (such as SQL); in which case the "received wisdom" on the Linux kernel about published vs internal interfaces and GPL-only symbols does not hold. But of course this is just hearsay; a qualified opinion would be most interesting.
(Log in to post comments)
Another counterexample? Posted Jun 27, 2008 16:12 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] I had the same thought that Larry missed the point when he implied people are saying linking is a copyright infringement. It is, instead, the preparation of and distribution of a derivative work that is thought by some to be a copyright infringement. But the derivative work argument I have seen does not talk about distributing a linked combination. The derivative work is the Nvidia driver all by itself. That would mean distributing the driver alone, or even creating it in the first place is controlled by copyright law (so requires the permission of the authors of Linux). Though this seems strange, the analog that is apparently well accepted in classic copyright is writing of a sequel to someone else's book. If you use the same characters, settings, etc., you need the permission of the author of the original. Extending that to loadable kernel modules, the argument I've seen considers it significant that the module's entire purpose is to extend that one work -- just like a book sequel.
|
|
||||||||||||