Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

[Craig Milo Rogers]

On 03.12.09, bill davidsen wrote:
> In article <3FD4C9C8.6040709@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Karim Yaghmour  <karim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> | I didn't exactly specify how the interfacing would be done because that's
> | besides the point I'm trying to make (in fact, it's the later part of my
> | email which was most important). But here's two other ways to do it just
> | for the sake of discussion:
> | a) Hard-wired assembly in the driver that calls on the appropriate address
> | with the proper structure offsets etc. No headers used here.
> 
> Well, the addresses and offset specs came from *somewhere*, and I would
> love to hear someone argue that they "just seemed like good values," or
> that reading the header file and then using absolute numbers isn't
> derivative.

	INAL.  Observable facts (such as absolute numbers) aren't
derivative (in the U.S.) because there's no "creativity"***.  See the
famous court decision (... web search ...)  "Feist Publications
v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co.", for example.  Of course, the DCMA (or
other fell beasts) may have superseded that legal doctrine.

					Craig Milo Rogers

*** This raises the possibility that structured numbers might be
    copyrightable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/