| |||||||||||||
Is disassembly really that hard?Is disassembly really that hard?Posted Nov 15, 2012 16:21 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)In reply to: Is disassembly really that hard? by renox Parent article: RTS and the GPL
It's even possible that there's a strong chinese wall put in place at Rising Tide so that their kernel contributions are a derivative work of their proprietary version, and that the in-flow of patches from LKML goes through a reverse-engineering team, relieving it of its place in their software. If so, that would save them any need for attempts at GPL compliance. If this is the case, they have a stronger argument that they are not in the wrong - no GPL code means no GPL obligations. That would also rely on a judicial ruling that programming interfaces are facts outside the scope of copyright and copyright licensing, which we saw in the Google-Oracle Java-on-Android suit (in both US and EU territories).
I doubt they were that organised, in the past.
K3n.
(Log in to post comments)
Is disassembly really that hard? Posted Nov 21, 2012 21:37 UTC (Wed) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
The Google vs. Oracle lawsuit was about public APIs, not about internal programming interfaces inside a program.
A public API might require emulating for compatibility & interoperability reasons, but internal programming interfaces are something entirely different (they are only to be used by the program itself, so any code using it is part of the program).
Also, in this case they do not only use the kernel programming interface, they also link it tot the linux kernel itself.
|
|||||||||||||