| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 23:30:35 +0000 From: Nuno Silva <nuno.silva@...rtech.com> To: "Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com> CC: davids@...master.com, v j <vj.linux@...il.com>, trent.waddington@...il.com, "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de> Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Michael K. Edwards wrote: > Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and > what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that > compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense. > Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and > readable. Hello. [Sorry for deleting the rest of the email but it was quite large] I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a "derivative work". We all know that #include <anything.h> is mostly non copyrightable, so I mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may not need to include the source when distributing the resulting module.ko. (need = from a legal standpoint... The intended spirit of the GPL is another story) In this context what do you think about porting Linux to another arch? Does the people porting the OS needs to distribute the source with the [compiled] kernel? (Yes, it's a trick question) IANAL too. Regards, Nuno Silva - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists