[olug] OT: more Hans goodness

[William Langford]

Hate top post but.... Heh

Attempting to claim the ABI can't be reverse engineered is silly.  
Hardware hackers have clean roomed lots of nasty stuff. If a company  
would be interested in doing so is doubtful, however.

As an elaboration, I'm not completely sold... Either. I'm not sure if  
a new module fits the description or not.

In terms of legality, what many (prominent or not) developers think  
doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

While Greg K-H's attempt to solve the issue is admirable... "trust me  
I talked to anonymous clueful people" is less than convincing.

I'd really prefer giving the 'part excluded' vs 'whole included'  
paragraph another once over once I'm more awake. It seems dubious to  
say an individual part isn't bound but then to immediately claim the  
whole work is bound. Both can not be true. The only cut dry way I see  
a binary driver as breach is if they license the wrapper GPL direct  
without viral requirement.

For the record, I'm unsure of my position on the matter, as if my  
opinion matters heh.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 9, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Bill Brush wrote:
>> Based on my reading, I don't think that a module legally meets the
>> definition of a derivative work.  You, may of course, disagree with  
>> my
>> reading.
>
> I think a driver is quite clearly an elaboration.
>
>> I think the fact that no one with standing to contest these drivers  
>> has done
>> so is a convincing circumstantial corroboration of my point however.
>
> Actually, many (most?) Linux developers consider binary modules to  
> be illegal.
> Greg K-H, one of the 'major' developers, has also spoken with IP  
> lawyers
> regarding the matter, and they all agree that binary modules are  
> illegal.
>
> http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
>    "Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal. That's it, it is  
> very
>     simple. I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different  
> IP lawyers
>     over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked  
> to all agree
>     that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel  
> module, today,
>     that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun  
> things like
>     derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very  
> simple.
>
>     Now no lawyer will ever come out in public and say this, as  
> lawyer really
>     aren't allowed to make public statements like this at all. But  
> if you hire
>     one, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting, they will  
> advise you of
>     this issue."
>
> _______________________________________________
> OLUG mailing list
> OLUG at olug.org
> http://lists.olug.org/mailman/listinfo/olug