linux-kernel - Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45E1CDD0.5080108@seclark.us>
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/