Re: New licence and driver SDK ?

[Alexander Terekhov <boo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 01:42:02PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > A new problem with the new licence was taken to my attention, concerning
> > > the SDK. It seems some files of the SDK, which are linked with the
> > > hardware drivers may be affected by the licence change, which would
> > > preclude pure GPLed third party drivers.
> >
> > Linking doesn't constitute creation of derivative work. The resulting
> > "combined work" (executable/tarball/bootable-image/CD/whatnot) is a
> > compilation (see the statute), not a derivative work.
> >
> > http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html
> > (see VI.D.4. Derivative Works and Compilations)
> >
> > Read also the following message (and the entire thread):
> >
> > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:7690
> >
> > <quote>
> >
> > No open source license can prohibit any licensee from creating
> > proprietary combinations of independently-created proprietary
> > and open source software that merely work together through APIs.
> > Such combinations are not "derivative works" of software.
> >
> > </quote>
> 
> Well, this may well be true for linking to client-side libraries,
> altough it seems contrary to all that i have been lead to believe this
> past years. 

http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL18.pdf

>             And even there, i believe this is only the case if you can
> find alternatives libraries fullfilling the API in question, ...

A) http://tinyurl.com/36496

<quote>

Copyright does not protect the functionality of the code but only 
the particular expression of that functionality.  If a proper black 
box analysis is carried out,  X will not be derivative of Y and the 
holder of the copyright in Y will have no rights to restrict 
distribution of X. The copyright holder might be able to restrict 
the use of Y with a EULA so that it can't be used with X, but the 
GPL declines to do this.  I suspect that it would be difficult to 
accomplish a binding EULA on free software but that's what I think 
is required.

</quote>

B) http://tinyurl.com/3c6zl (read the entire thread)

C) http://tinyurl.com/yw7rp

Note that Professor Lee Hollaar is quite an authority.

http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise2.html

<quote>

I've known Lee Hollaar since I joined the Senate Judiciary 
Committee as its Chief Intellectual Property Counsel. Committee 
staff and its former chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch, have benefited 
from his advice for a number of years. During his sabbatical in 
1996-97, he worked with me on Internet, copyright, and patent 
issues as a Committee Fellow.

It's unlikely that there is anybody else with his qualifications 
for writing this book. He has been programming digital computers 
since 1964, has a Ph.D. in computer science, and has designed and 
implemented computer software, computer hardware, and data 
communications networks. He understands the law both from his 
studies, as a patent agent, and as a key technical advisor in a 
number of important court cases. He has an insider's view from 
his work with Congress and the courts. And he is able to pull 
this diverse background together to bring about an understanding 
of the important issues in computer law today.

I've always enjoyed and learned from my discussions with Lee and 
now, with this book and his Web site, you can too.

Edward J. Damich
Chief Judge
United States Court of Federal Claims

</quote>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/14351.html

<quote>

But Microsoft reserves most of its ire for Peterson, Lundgren and 
Hollaar - Hollaar in particular. Professor Hollaar of the 
University of Utah "has made something of a career of testifying 
against Microsoft," says the company's filing. Indeed, he's been 
fairly busy on the subject - Hollaar supported both Bristol and 
Caldera in their antitrust actions against Microsoft, and in the 
Caldera case did quite a lot of work in the area of the 
integration of Dos and Windows to form Windows 95. 

</quote>

And, finally, he also wrote this:

http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1636/0.pdf

<quote>

Substituting an alternative module for one supplied by Microsoft 
may not violate copyright law, and certainly not because of any 
"integrity of the work" argument. The United States recognizes 
"moral rights" of attribution and integrity only for works of 
visual art in limited editions of 200 or fewer copies. (See 17 
U.S.C. 106A and the definition of "work of visual art" in 17 
U.S.C. 101.) A bookstore can replace the last chapter of a 
mystery novel without infringing its copyright, as long as they 
are not reprinting the other chapters but are simply removing 
the last chapter and replacing it with an alternative one, but 
must not pass the book off as the original. Having a copyright 
in a work does not give that copyright owner unlimited freedom 
in the terms he can impose.

</quote>

Note that the GPL does allow "reprinting". That's Section 1. 

regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
Forum mailing list
Forum@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/forum