Windows driver as derivative work

Posted Feb 28, 2006 9:13 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
In reply to: Windows driver as derivative work by giraffedata
Parent article: Wasabi white paper on kernel modules

It looks like Microsoft believes they're derivative works; they wouldn't need explicit permission from Microsoft if they weren't.

I did not mean it in that sense; Microsoft has encouraged the existence of drivers, and never claimed they are derivative works, to my best (and shallow) knowledge. It would be quite absurd also; they might as well claim that programs written for Windows are derivative works. There is no difference actually: Microsoft publishes an API, a developer uses it to write some software (be it a device driver or a regular program).

So, you say that the only criterion for considering something a derivative work is the one established by a judge. Well, we did not need Wasabi's study to tell us that. But I would think that the developer's opinion should matter something; if Torvalds and the gang think that some symbols are GPL only (implying a high degree of interaction), while the rest can be used in binary drivers; and the FSF as authors of the license think that it is a reasonable "exception" to the linking clause, I would say that development of binary drivers should be safe enough. Ignoring both opinions seems like an important omission to me.