Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > One of the questions about "Derivative Work" as it relates to binary > > > only loadable objects, is the creation of a boundary layer of execution. > > > Specifically, the design and publishing an API which properly glues into > > > an open source gpl program or kernel(ie loadable modules services) designed > > > to provide an execution layer between the GPL and Commerial private code. > > > Where as no GPL code in any form is allowed to touch the Commerial code. > > > The converse is true, obviously. The execution layer or boundary. > > > Now using this reference from 1995, many companies have gotten legal > > > positions about binary modules. > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi > > > > What Linus says presumably is valid for Linux. RMS agrees with that > > in the message you forwarded. It doesn't necessarily apply to any > > program other than Linux. Note in particular the last paragraph in > > Linus's message. > > If all one is using are headers or .h files and everything else is from > scratch, does using the headers under the statement above comply with the > intent? > > I am not seeking an opinion without paying for it.
I guess I'm not sure which you mean when you say ``the statement above.'' The statement by Linus or the statement by RMS? I expect that the answer is different. I think it's clear that you can sell binary loadable modules for Linux--or, at any rate, as clear as it can be in the absence of actual law or precedent. Given Linus's public statements, I personally would have no legal concerns about a business plan based on selling binary modules for Linux. If you're talking about something other than Linux, it might help if you said what you are talking about. I am not a lawyer. My experience is that different lawyers will give you different advice in this area. > > > I ship and sell binary only products, so I have an interest in not > > > restricting people. > > > > Other than your customers, presumably. Restrictions cut both ways. > > In what way would a restrict cut both ways here? Binary only products restrict your customers, by comparison to source code products. I'm not questioning your decision to sell binary only products; I'm just pointing out that by following a scheme of not restricting module distributors, you are choosing to restrict module users. It's not a case of ``not restricting people,'' as you put it; it's a case of choosing which restrictions to use. Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
