Mailing List Archive
tlug.jp Mailing List tlug archive tlug Mailing List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:57:34 +0900
- From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- References: <20051214013213.GA21148@example.com><20051213234557.1ddaa912.jep200404@example.com><d8fcc0800512132104u789df0cr@example.com><20051214165919.5e77f333.jep200404@example.com><87slsvqa72.fsf@example.com><20051214235042.3eeac4b6.jep200404@example.com><8764pqpfd8.fsf@example.com><1134700182.8411.56.camel@example.com>
- Organization: The XEmacs Project
- User-agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.5-b23 (daikon, linux)
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com> writes: Edward> My understanding is that if the GPL kernel used a non-GPL Edward> standard interface Interfaces cannot be copyrighted, because they are not expressive works. You can prevent linking to those interfaces by your license for the work that exposes them, but you can't license the interface itself, anymore than you can copyright and license the English language. Edward> then a module implementing that interface would not be Edward> derivative of that kernel. If the driver had to be Edward> written for the specific kernel rather then for a standard Edward> interface then it would be a derivative. This is one of Edward> two reasons why a number of companies want a standard Edward> binary interface for Linux. This only matters if the ABI has non-GPL implementations. However, if the only kernels it works with are GPL-licensed, then the FSF's position is that standardizing the ABI is irrelevant. It runs in the same memory space, it's linked, so it's a derivative. Edward> I would contend that this doesn't apply to the Linux Edward> kernel either, the issue is whether it is a derivative Edward> work, linking is just a test for determining that a work Edward> is derivative. Which is exactly what _I_ said! It's a little bit slippery whether loadable modules are ipso facto part of a derivative work, but my position is that until they are shown to be linkable both logically and legally to some other product, they are a derivative of the kernel. My claim is that the license Linus intended for the kernel is like the LGPL; it excludes certain kinds of linkage from the GPL obligations. That's why I asked whether the documents exist or not, as existence would prove that the GPL is modified in the case of Linux licensing. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- From: Edward Middleton
- References:
- [tlug] [Almost OT] Dvico Tivx
- From: Maurod Sauco
- Re: [tlug] GPL and Linux in Dvico Tivx
- From: Jim
- Re: [tlug] GPL and Linux in Dvico Tivx
- From: Josh Glover
- Re: [tlug] GPL and Linux in Dvico Tivx
- From: Jim
- Re: [tlug] GPL and Linux in Dvico Tivx
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- From: Jim
- Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- From: Stephen J. Turnbull
- Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- From: Edward Middleton
Home | Main Index | Thread Index
- Prev by Date: Re: [tlug] Should we stop password protecting the TLUG archives?
- Next by Date: Re: [tlug] Should we stop password protecting the TLUG archives?
- Previous by thread: Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- Next by thread: Re: [tlug] Proprietary code linked with GPL code
- Index(es):
Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links