Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:07:26 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
| |
Paul Adams wrote:
>--- In linux-kernel@yahoogroups.com, Linus Torvalds ><torvalds@o...> wrote: > >>- anything that was written with Linux in mind >> >(whether it then > >>_also_ works on other operating systems or not) is >> >clearly > >>partially a derived work. >> > >I am no more a lawyer than you are, but I have to >disagree. You >are not free to define "derivative work" as you >please. You >must use accepted legal definitions. At least in the >U.S., you >must consider what Congress had to say on this. They >said, "to >constitute a violation of section 106(2) [which gives >copyright >owners rights over derivative works], the infringing >work must >incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some >form; for >example, a detailed commentary on a work or a >programmatic musical >composition inspired by a novel would not normally >constitute >infringements under this clause." >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.notes.html > >A work that is inspired by Linux is no more a >derivative work than >a programmatic musical composition inspired by a >novel. Having >Linux in mind cannot be enough to constitute >infringement. >
Of course not, thought police aren't any good until a mind reader is invented ;)
Seriously: What about specifically a module that includes the Linux Kernel's headers and uses its APIs? I don't think you could say that is definitely not a derivative work.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |