Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Nick Piggin]

Paul Adams wrote:

> --- In linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/