OS abstraction - not always a trap
Posted Aug 19, 2011 22:11 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata
In reply to: OS abstraction - not always a trap
Parent article: Avoiding the OS abstraction trap
Which could be defended against with estoppel because the generation of the kernel code and then labelling it as GPL was done by the copyright owner.
Wrong code. We're talking about the copyright on the rest of the kernel. The owners of that have authorized folks to prepare and distribute derivative works only if they provide their source code in "preferred form." So if the generated code isn't preferred form, and a copyright owner gets nasty, there could be trouble both for the authors of the asihpi driver and anyone who distributes a kernel that contains it.
It exists in its own right independent of our private version. The scripted conversion just saves us the process of porting changes manually when our version changes.
Note that you could say the same thing about an ELF version which the author compiles from C, and everyone agrees ELF is not "the preferred form."
The fact that the generated code is C, and presumably pretty normal C, is a much more persuasive argument that it is "the preferred form."
I guess the answer is irrelevant until the copyright owner of the code in question decides to turn nasty.
I don't see how this is possible once the code has been released under GPL.
First, to be clear: "the code in question" is the Linux kernel in its entirety. And if the asihpi driver code is not in the preferred form, then the code in question has not been released - its release was conditional on everything lumped with it being available in preferred form.
to post comments)