| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Another counterexample?Another counterexample?Posted Jun 27, 2008 16:12 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Another counterexample? by man_ls Parent article: A position statement on closed-source kernel modules
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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||