Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules

Posted Aug 6, 2020 13:47 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
In reply to: Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules by anselm
Parent article: Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules

> doesn't incorporate any copyrightable part of the original program.

We wish it were that simple

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_v._Oracle_America

Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules

Posted Aug 6, 2020 14:44 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

Note that Google's conduct in this case does in fact involve copying stuff from Oracle, and the court case hinges mainly on (a) whether the Oracle stuff in question that Google copied is copyrightable in the first place, and (b) if it is, whether it was OK for Google to copy it under the doctrine of “fair use”. It doesn't really help us with the question of whether program A is “derivative” of program B if it calls program B without incorporating copyrightable stuff from B.

Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules

Posted Aug 6, 2020 23:07 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (1 responses)

I think you're making a distinction between re-implementing an API versus using it. I doubt this makes a legal difference, references?

Netgpu and the hazards of proprietary kernel modules

Posted Oct 13, 2020 16:07 UTC (Tue) by immibis (subscriber, #105511) [Link]

There may be a difference between writing a compatible implementation of a proprietary library, and actually copying the header files from the proprietary library into your one (which Google did).