Peter Wemm wrote:
The next point is that the Linux folks (including Linus) seem to consider that making calls to the linux kernel causes your driver to be a derivative, unless the API you're calling has been blessed as a public interface. (To be fair, I can see the point for their specific circumstances, but their interpretation of copyright seems to be quite a stretch to me).
I wonder if the "netlink" API constitutes such a set of calls to the Linux kernel. I raise this matter because we've just grown multiple route table support, and it looks like we could use an API for that. If we can gain compatibility with other systems, that widens our appeal.
Given that its developers had an informational RFC published, under the auspices of "an interface to IP service modules", I think that somewhat weakens the case that implementing an API constitutes a "derivative work".
Such an interpretation of copyright seems equivocal, when one considers that the same group criticise Microsoft for not opening their APIs: "We want everyone to be able to play together, but only by our new set of rules".
To which one can respond: surely curses came before ncurses? And surely routing sockets came before netlink? Etc ad nauseam.
_______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
