On 11/26/06, jdow <jdow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 20:04, Peter Gordon wrote: >> On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 17:05 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: >> > What does 'likely' mean? First you'd have to show that a device >> > driver is a derived work from the kernel in copyright terms, since >> > that is all that the GPL can cover - which is a pretty odd concept >> > to begin with. >> >> Every device driver includes common kernel headers without which they >> would be useless. This makes them derived works, as I understand it. > > Back when AT&T sued BSDI in '93 or so they weren't able to make > the point that copying the header files (which Linux necessarily > also duplicates on the user interface side) was copyright > infringement. It doesn't make much sense to provide an interface > and assert that the only possible way to use it is illegal. And > I doubt that the GNU folks really want to encourage the idea > of interface copyrights - or that they can get away with > pretending that this is something else. Header files are likened to a laundry list. You can't copyright a laundry list and make it stick. Ditto for a telephone book's contents.
Dam lot of wasted energy on artificial concepts you ask me. -- Fedora Core 6 and proud -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
