Re: windows video capture card driver source contains LGPLv2 header file - can I port?
On Feb 25, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > I would suggest that a cleanroom implementation would be the way to go > if you care about mainlining the driver. Out of curiosity - why? (Especially given the driver may never get ported with the cleanroom approach.) No license / copyright is needed for functional elements... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/80f86089-e659-4e9f-9e24-f5bd9195e...@packetlaw.com
Re: windows video capture card driver source contains LGPLv2 header file - can I port?
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:43 AM, erp...@gmail.com wrote: > I'm more concerned about what the Linux kernel maintainers will think > and whether or not they will reject any driver I write for copyright > reasons. I would suggest that a cleanroom implementation would be the way to go if you care about mainlining the driver. As it is, the origin, copyright and license of the code is unclear at best. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6GXV=BbgT4wa_ZdkeEiAwe7HSBgmkY=t1w0agatx96...@mail.gmail.com
Re: windows video capture card driver source contains LGPLv2 header file - can I port?
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Chris Harshman wrote: > On Feb 25, 2012, at 10:46 AM, erp...@gmail.com wrote: > >> What are my options for creating a Linux driver for this hardware? > > What you've reported doesn't really provide enough information for us to > opine (even with 'non-legal advice' opinions). You say the Windows > application is distinct from the driver, but is that distinction maintained > in the copyright notices? Etc. By distinct, I mean that there are three separate components inside the archive I downloaded. There is a Drv directory that contains the .h and .cpp files necessary to build a WDM device driver that is loaded into the Windows kernel. The only copyright notice found inside this set of files is the LGPLv2 notice in Command.h. The file that contains most of the code, main.cpp, does not have a copyright notice. Additionally, there are some (Chinese?) comments I can't read. There is also an App directory containing a Microsoft Visual C++ project that builds an exe file that runs in userspace. I haven't run it yet, but I think it talks to the device driver to extract frames from the video capture card and perhaps display or save them. None of the files that are used to build this executable have any type of copyright notice except for a resource script (.rc file). It does not identify the copyright holder or the license under which it is distributed--only that the copyright date is 2007. Finally, there is a Bin directory, containing the compiled driver and the compiled userspace executable. In the same directory there is an inf file used to install the driver in Windows. It contains the notice: Copyright (c) 1991-2004 VastVision Corporation. Those are all of the copyright notices. Is that useful information? > The Command.h file -- was it built/provided > by the driver manufacturer, or did the author of the Windows driver/software > use LGPL code? Etc. I believe the Command.h file was originally written for the Windows bt878 capture card driver, released under the LGPLv2 and then it was "borrowed" for use in this driver. I suspect that the binary .sys WDM kernel driver provided in the Bin directory was compiled using this header by the driver manufacturer. > But it may not matter. Recall that (at least in the U.S., where arguably the > biggest threat of litigation exists), copyright does not extend to > functional elements; Lotus v. Borland, 516 U.S. 233 (1996). To the extent > code is required to interoperate with the hardware, you can reuse/derive > from it safely. (You might also want to familiarize yourself with the > "Abstraction / Filtration / Comparison" test from Computer Associates v. > Altai 982 F.2d 693 (6th Cir. > 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test ). > > In short, I personally would not take a clean-room approach to that code. > I'd look at it, learn from it, and write my own Linux driver, personally. > Anything specific to the hardware I'd copy more or less verbatim. Anything > else, if there's really only the one way of doing it, it's not copyright > protected; if there's more than one way, I'd be creative. :) I like this answer. :) > This is not legal advice; if you want that, contact me directly (and pay me > =)). I really appreciate the portion of your Saturday that you put into this free response to my question, but I don't think I need actual legal advice right now. Based on my interactions with the company that made the chip, I seriously doubt they would care even if I copied and pasted all of their code into a Linux driver. They just don't seem to care. I'm more concerned about what the Linux kernel maintainers will think and whether or not they will reject any driver I write for copyright reasons. Thanks, Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/capqxddrqe3hn-61dguxygp6-uwojb8pbsvtfdxpkdrqppeq...@mail.gmail.com
Re: windows video capture card driver source contains LGPLv2 header file - can I port?
On Feb 25, 2012, at 10:46 AM, erp...@gmail.com wrote: > What are my options for creating a Linux driver for this hardware? What you've reported doesn't really provide enough information for us to opine (even with 'non-legal advice' opinions). You say the Windows application is distinct from the driver, but is that distinction maintained in the copyright notices? Etc. The Command.h file -- was it built/provided by the driver manufacturer, or did the author of the Windows driver/software use LGPL code? Etc. But it may not matter. Recall that (at least in the U.S., where arguably the biggest threat of litigation exists), copyright does not extend to functional elements; Lotus v. Borland, 516 U.S. 233 (1996). To the extent code is required to interoperate with the hardware, you can reuse/derive from it safely. (You might also want to familiarize yourself with the "Abstraction / Filtration / Comparison" test from Computer Associates v. Altai 982 F.2d 693 (6th Cir. 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison_test ). In short, I personally would not take a clean-room approach to that code. I'd look at it, learn from it, and write my own Linux driver, personally. Anything specific to the hardware I'd copy more or less verbatim. Anything else, if there's really only the one way of doing it, it's not copyright protected; if there's more than one way, I'd be creative. :) This is not legal advice; if you want that, contact me directly (and pay me =)).
windows video capture card driver source contains LGPLv2 header file - can I port?
Hi all, I am writing because I have a video capture card based on the MV9200 chip, which currently does not have a Linux driver, and I would like to remedy that situation. I'll bet you can guess how responsive the company behind the MV9200 has been when asked for Linux drivers or hardware documentation. I googled for a Windows driver, and the archive I found contained the binary Windows driver AND its source code! I couldn't believe my luck. Now I'm not sure how to proceed because I'm not sure of the copyright status of the code, and I don't know if that even matters. I grepped through the source code for 'copyright' and found three instances: 1. The .rc file for the accompanying windows application (as distinct from the driver) contains a "Copyright (C) 2007" string. 2. The .inf file for the driver contains a "Copyright (c) 1991-2004 VastVision Corporation" string. 3. The header file Command.h in the driver source code contains a "Copyright (C) 2000 - 2002 by Eduardo Jos?Tagle" string. The final one intrigued me. The beginning of that file contains the following comment: /* Command.hpp: Part of the WDM Video Capture Driver for Bt848 based video capture cards Copyright (C) 2000 - 2002 by Eduardo Jos?Tagle. This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Library General Public License for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public License along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. */ What are my options for creating a Linux driver for this hardware? Thank you, Eric Anopolsky -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPQXdDT23=e0lnmmmqo752fqhptpnbkirn3izk9fzoy1c8e...@mail.gmail.com
