I'm more inclined to stick to moral/sanity arguments rather than legal
ones (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.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds