| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Practical vs. PossiblePractical vs. PossiblePosted Oct 14, 2003 20:17 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: LinkSys and binary modules by rknop Parent article: LinkSys and binary modules The question of whether binary-only modules are allowed comes down to whether, and under what circumstances, it's possible to restrict them. If such a module contains code copied from GPLed modules, then it is simply and unambiguously forbidden. The person whose code was copied has standing to sue, no matter what Linus or anybody else says. The trick is discovering whose code was copied, and persuading the injured party to pursue the matter, or delegate pursuit to somebody willing. If the module is distributed along with a kernel, and it only works with that kernel, it's unambiguously forbidden. The combination is a derived work, and the GPL states clearly the rules for derived works. Anybody who has code in the kernel has standing to sue, no matter what Linus or anybody else says. If the module is distributed independently of a kernel, and contains no code lifted from the kernel, and uses only published interfaces into the kernel, then (again) it doesn't matter what Linus or any other copyright holder says. Then, it's probably not a derived work. A judge might be persuaded either way. What Linus announced, and clarified, is just that fact: as best he understands, copyright law doesn't allow him to enforce the GPL in that case. What he said doesn't change the license, it just explains his understanding of what the license (and the copyright law it relies on) covers and doesn't cover.
(Log in to post comments)
Practical vs. Possible Posted Oct 14, 2003 20:25 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] If the module is distributed independently of a kernel, and contains no code lifted from the kernel, and uses only published interfaces into the kernel, then (again) it doesn't matter what Linus or any other copyright holder says. Then, it's probably not a derived work. The issue then becomes more continuous... just how much ought to be published interface? As the article notes, it's not too far to imagine making publishable interfaces such that pretty seriously core parts of the kernel could have proprietary plug-ins. Right now, we mostly have that just for device drivers. -Rob
Practical vs. Possible Posted Oct 14, 2003 20:38 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] If it's in a header file, it's probably published. Even if it's not in header file, the source is published. No matter what the FSF says, a judge is likely to decide that if you physically can plug into it without "circumventing" anybody's encryption, then you're allowed to. Of course, the more of that you do, the more fragile your module becomes.None of these fine points apply to Linksys, of course. They can't just ship the module, they have to ship the kernel, too, or they don't have a router to sell. That puts them squarely under my second alternative, above, shipping what is unambiguously a derived work.
Practical vs. Possible Posted Oct 14, 2003 20:55 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I don't think copyright's concept of derivative works have anything to dowith encyption. The only part of copyright that does is the DMCA and we aren't talking about that here, at least I hope not :)
|
|
||||||||||||