Re: [tlug] GPL and Linux in Dvico Tivx

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 00:40 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: 
>     Edward> From reasonably extensive reading of the lkml I don't
>     Edward> think Linus ever made any amendments to the GPL.
> Whether he did or not is not really in question.  He did, and
> proprietary binary modules are easily found and openly distributed, by
> law-abiding companies.
As you said "whether he did or not is not really the question", the
Linux kernel is not owned by Linus (he is one of many copyright
holders),  It is covered by the GPL, if Linus wants to change the
copyright, he would, like anyone else, have to get the permission of all
contributing parties or remove their contributions.  Unless you are
suggesting this has happened the rest is moot.

If these "law-abiding companies" distribute proprietary drivers that are
derivative works they have infringed the copyright of whoever owns that
part of the kernel they have linked to.

>     >> Disclosure can never be compelled under US law.  It might be
>     >> negotiated under threat of punitive damages, of course.
> 
>     Edward> Presumably this would be covered by Japanese law because
>     Edward> it was being distributed in Japan.
> 
> I don't think so.  Copyright is an international property right,
> protected by several treaties.  Not to mention that most countries'
> courts will entertain suits by their nationals against foreign actors
> in foreign countries that damage the property of their nationals.  So
> I think that yes, Linus _could_ sue in Japan, but I don't think he's
> restricted to that.  He can probably sue anywhere that is signatory to
> the treaty.
IANAL but from my understanding of copyright this is dead wrong.  My
understanding is that international treaties relate to the existence of
copyright but local laws dictate the scope of copyright.  Thus until
recently you had the situation were European copyrights lasted longer
then American copyrights. If what you are saying were true then most
cases of software infringement would be tried under US law.

-- 
Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>