Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

From: Josh Myer (jbm@joshisanerd.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 21:48:06 EST


On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :(
>
> Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be
> protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in
> mm_inline.h and of some of the semaphore code, but probably
> isn't true of the spinlock code.
>

(US-Centric, since that's where I'm from, live, and code)

Since you're functionally using it, and it's not a protected use (Satire,
etc, though some would argue that the nvidia drivers are a mockery...), I
would tend to think Fair Use wouldn't apply in this case. Are there any IP
Lawyers in the house?

The only analogy i can think of is a remix of songs, and several people
have gotten into wonderfully large lawsuits over that.

> Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by
> copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered
> a derived work. Many questions remaining...
>

This basically all falls upon the shoulders of whoever wrote the spinlock
code on whatever platform you're compiling for...

At this point, I think it's safe to say that the days of the legally
unencumbered binary-only module (read: binary-only modules you aren't
liable to get sued for) are numbered. Personally, I'm a little
saddened at the loss of openness, but won't miss weird binary-only
problems.

--
/jbm, but you can call me Josh. Really, you can!
 "What's a metaphor?" "For sheep to graze in"
7958 1C1C 306A CDF8 4468  3EDE 1F93 F49D 5FA1 49C4

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:30 EST