| |||||||||||||
invalidate_mmap_range() againinvalidate_mmap_range() againPosted Feb 26, 2004 9:02 UTC (Thu) by simlo (subscriber, #10866)Parent article: invalidate_mmap_range() again To me it seems the GPL zealots are using the same arguments against this kind of module as SCO is towards RCU: If it was developped for Linux it is a derivative of Linux and must thus be distributed under GPL. Since RCU was developed for Unix it is a derivative work of Unix and must be treated according to the contract between the Unix licensee and SCO. I don't know what the lawyers say, but I can't see that a function not contanining any direct code from Linux or Unix can be a derivative work. Only the combination between the function and Linux or Unix can be a derivative work.
(Log in to post comments)
invalidate_mmap_range() again Posted Feb 26, 2004 12:24 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] There's a fairly fundamental difference;IBM is going to Linus and saying the equivalent of: "Please make these changes to your code, so that my proprietary kernel-module will work under Linux." As far as I know, noone has ever approached SCO and asked them to change their code in order to make something or other involving Linux or free software in general possible. A program that can be compiled and run under any of half a dozen oses is obviously not a derivative of any of them. A module that is hacked up in a way (with a bsd compatibility layer and whatnot) that it can ONLY work with one spesific OS (Linux) and ONLY if that OS chooses to incorporate changes making the module run is a lot more intimately tied to the OS.
invalidate_mmap_range() again Posted Feb 26, 2004 12:59 UTC (Thu) by simlo (subscriber, #10866) [Link] There are morally differences. But even though the interface is changed and the system can only run on Linux the filesystem itself is not anymore a derivative work of Linux than RCU is a derivative of Unix.Ofcourse Linux + the filesystem is a kind derivative work as if Linux + Nvidia driver. If distributing <Linux>+<Nvidia driver> is legal then is You can't have legal decitions based on "how integrated it is", "if it was The decision I would want was that you can do anything to the kernel you want - including changes to the interfaces. You then have to destribute that under GPL. But on that product you can load whatever module you want. I wish we could have a case going to court such we can get this decided. The worst thing is that we don't know what is what. If it is decided that binary modules isn't ok, we can always make userspace drivers. I am pretty sure that in that case RedHat will put such an interface into their Linux even if Linus wont because people _need_ non-GPL drivers (to have them in userspace would also greatly impact stability.)
IBM's not going to Linus Posted Feb 27, 2004 16:57 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] IBM is going to Linus and saying the equivalent of: "Please make these changes to your code ...I need to correct a significant misconception here: IBM is not going to Linus. IBM is going to (the addressee's of Paul McKenney's email) the nebulous Linux kernel community, the nebulous Linux 2.6 kernel community, and Andrew Morton. And it (the Linux kernel) is not Linus' code. I don't believe it was mentioned in the articles whose decision it was to include the original EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL into the Linus/Andrew tree or whose decision it was to change it to EXPORT_SYMBOL, or if one or the other other was a complete accident.
invalidate_mmap_range() again Posted Feb 26, 2004 13:24 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] The concerned Linux developers don't claim any right in the GPFS, but in theLinux+GPFS combination. It is the difference with SCO claims.
I support IBM on this one Posted Feb 26, 2004 20:16 UTC (Thu) by lakeland (subscriber, #1157) [Link] I'm more inclined to stick to moral/sanity arguments rather than legalones (perhaps because IANAL?). From a moral perspective, IBM has asked nicely, they've played fair elsewhere, and what they're asking for doesn't inconvenience anybody else. So, what is lost by agreeing? Notice that the "they've played fair elsewhere" clause invalidates the argument that thousands of hardware companies could now ask for silly glue. Also, I agree 100% with their argument that it isn't a derived work (in the rational sense, I've given up trying to make judgements about derived works in the legal sense since it is just too counterintuitive). The compatibility layer clearly shows it is a work for another platform which was ported to Linux. To me, and the dictionary seems to agree, derived means 'comes from', not 'is intimately tied to'. Often those are the same, but here they're not.
|
|||||||||||||