On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote: > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to > > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking > > operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and > > version) are inline assembly that are directly output into the code > > which uses them. As a result any binary module which uses those > > functions from the Linux headers is fairly directly a derivative work > > of the GPL headers because it contains machine code translated > > literally from GPLed assembly code found therein. There are also a > > fair number of large perhaps-wrongly inline functions of which the > > use of any one would be likely to make the resulting binary > > "derivative". > > That's not protectable expression under United States law. See Lexmark v. > Static Controls and the analogous case of the TLP (ignore the DMCA stuff in > that case, that's not relevant). If you want to make that kind of content > protectable, you have to get it out of the header files. > > You cannot protect, by copyright, every reasonably practical way of > performing a function. Only a patent can do that. If taking something is > reasonably necessary to express a particular idea (and a Linux module for > the ATI X850 card is an idea), then that something cannot be protected by > copyright when it is used to express that idea. (Even if it would clearly > be protectably expression in another context.) > > The premise of copyright is that there are millions of equally-good ways to > express the same idea or perform the same function, and you creatively pick > one, and that choice is protected. But if I'm developing a Linux module for > a particular network card, choosing to use the Linux kernel header files is > the only practical choice to perform that particular function. So their > content is not protectable when used in that context. (If you make another > way to do it, then the content becomes protectable in that context again.) > > IANAL. > > DS
Agreed. You missed the point. Since the Linux Kernel header files contain a chunk of the source code for the kernel in the form of the macros for locking et. al. then using the headers - including that code in your module - makes it a derivative work. Actually, thinking about it, the way a Linux driver module works actually seems to make *ANY* driver a derivative work, because they are loaded into the kernels memory space and cannot function without having that done. *IF* the "Usermode Driver" interface that is being worked on ever proves useful then, and only then, could you consider it *NOT* a derivative work. Because then the only thing it is using *IS* an interface, not complete chunks of the source as generated when the pre-processor finishes running through the file. But as David said - IANAL D. Hazelton - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/