|| ||"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen-AT-rosenlaw.com> |
|| ||<linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, <linux-scsi-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
|| ||RE: scsi target, likely GPL violation |
|| ||Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:13:53 -0800|
|| ||<kcopenhaver-AT-choate.com>, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana-AT-redhat.com>,
"Marc Fleischmann" <mwf-AT-risingtidesystems.com>,
"Nicholas Bellinger" <nab-AT-risingtidesystems.com>,
<bkuhn-AT-sfconservancy.org>, <tytso-AT-mit.edu>, <lrosen-AT-rosenlaw.com>|
|| ||Article, Thread
Alan Cox wrote:
> So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
> wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
> of the complaints publically I guess probably a triple damages sized
> problem. But that's one for your lawyers and whatever opinion they
> have on the subject.
Hi Alan and others,
I've been advising Rising Tide Systems (RTS) in this matter. Please let me
reassure you that RTS is acting on advice of counsel.
RTS (and specifically Nicholas Bellinger) wrote the scsi target code and
owns its copyright. We registered that copyright at the Library of Congress.
RTS contributed a version of the scsi target to Linux for distribution under
the GPL. On behalf of Marc Fleischmann, CEO of RTS, I can reassure you that
RTS remains committed to the Linux project and will continue to contribute
to it. We are pleased that RTS software is a part of the Linux distribution
under the GPL.
RTS also has a commercial software business. It distributes versions of its
scsi target code that support features and functions not officially in Linux
(or at least, not yet). That commercial RTS business includes the licensing
of those derivative works of its own code to its own customers. Nothing
whatsoever in the GPL or in the policies of the Linux Foundation prohibits
I would also like to address some comments made on these lists by Andy
Grover and Bradley Kuhn.
First, I hope that we can tone down the arguments about whether the use of
Linux APIs and headers automatically turns a program into a derivative work
of Linux. I think that argument has been largely debunked in the U.S. in the
recent decision in Oracle v. Google, and in Europe in SAS v. World
Programming. Does anyone here question whether the original work that RTS
contributed to Linux (and that *is* under the GPL) is an original work of
authorship of RTS despite the fact that it links to other GPL code using
headers and APIs?
Second, we are grateful for the efforts that Bradley Kuhn and others put in
to enforce the GPL. As I said above, RTS owns and has registered the
copyright on its scsi target and will enforce it if necessary. So Brad, we
may solicit your assistance if we find any third party who is distributing
an unauthorized non-GPL derivative work of the scsi target now in Linux.
RTS, of course, retains the exclusive right to do so, but no third party can
do so without a license from RTS.
P.S. In accordance with my obligations as an attorney when communicating
with a represented person, I am copying attorneys for Red Hat and Linux
Foundation on this email. If anyone wishes to respond to me, please copy me
directly since I am not subscribed to these lists.
Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
to post comments)