Andre Hedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However ----- the issue is not talking about .exe or .com files, but > pluggin objects using the well known and publish API of the Linux Kernel.
Why do you keep harping on this particular issue? Is anybody telling you that you can not distribute your Linux loadable modules without source? Anybody at all? > Now lets move off to the land of Commerial OS's, specifically MicroSoft. > If any of you think a single judge would allow Bill Gates and company > to claim ownership of a third parties "ORIGINAL WORK" which is designed to > operate and expand the uses of the MicroSoft Operating System, please pass > around whatever you guys are smoking. Think clearly. The GPL does not claim ownership of your work. It merely puts conditions on distributing your work combined with GPL work. The question you are raising is whether #including a GPL header file means that your work has been combined with GPL work. I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question. (But I think there is a definitive answer for Linux, as opposed to some arbitrary work under the GPL, so why are you still worrying about this?) > GPL states you can change and do whatever you want, provide you return the > changes. No, it doesn't. Read it again. The GPL has no requirement for returning any changes to anybody. If you distribute source alongside your binaries, it has no requirement that you distribute source to anybody else. > Now that I can do whatever and create whatever, and in this model I will > copy verbatium every operational function regardless of any associated > flag tatoo'd to the API symbols list. This secondary abstraction object > layer will be dual licensed as OSL/LGPL. Therefore it is permitted to use > any and all exported sysmbols regardless of games played. If you literally ``copy verbatim,'' then you have to follow the permissions granted by the copyright owner (in section 6, note ``subject to these terms and conditions''). Since the original is under the GPL, that more or less requires that your new code be under the GPL as well. That prohibits you from distributing it under an OSL/LGPL license. If you use a clean room approach to creating the new header files, then I expect that your approach is legal. > So one sells the work or program on a single media, and make them download > or purchase the associated GPL programs to use and execute the non-GPL > product. This bypasses the distribution controls and hooks of the > tarbaby-license. Also this makes the final destination, the enduser. > Distribution is over and ability to dictate the usage is gone, section > six (6). Now argue out of this box. This is an old argument, often called ``user does the link;'' you distribute just enough source code to be able to use your binary modules, and you make the end-user build the source code. As with all these cases, nobody knows for sure whether it would be considered legal or not. I'm not aware that anybody has ever actually done it. Of course, I'm sure we're all clear that this has nothing to do with anything you want to do, because Linux already clearly permits binary modules. Right? Ian -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
