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: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:56:32 -0500 From: Stephen Clark <Stephen.Clark@...lark.us> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> CC: "Michael K. Edwards" <medwards.linux@...il.com>, 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 Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > > > >>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. >> >>I've drafted summaries from a couple of different angles since VJ >>requested a "translation into English", and I think this is the most >>coherent (and least foaming-at-the-mouth) I've crafted yet. It was >>written as an answer to a private query to this effect: "I write a >>POP server and release it under the GPL. The Evil Linker adds some >>hooks to my code, calls those hooks (along some of the existing ones) >>from his newly developed program, and only provides recipients of the >>binaries with source code for the modified POP server. His code >>depends on, and only works with, this modified version of my POP >>server. Doesn't he have to GPL his whole product, because he's >>combined his work with mine?" >> >>This is a fundamental misconception. A <<product>> is not a "work >> >> > >Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds >two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he >can get away with that. > >But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include ><pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h> from his >binary-only part? > >I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what >embedded people are doing; I do not think they are creating their own >headers or their own inline functions where headers contain them. > Pavel > > The amount copied has to be significant. A few lines against the millions in the kernel would not be enough to be copyright infringement. -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." (Thomas Jefferson) - 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