On Tuesday 08 April 2008, you wrote:
*sigh*
http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
Lawyers! Giving legal advice without money! Looks like they specialize in this stuff! Sweet!
Interesting how they cite, but ignore this part: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
How is a "plug-in" or "driver" any different from an elaboration?
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
How is a "plug-in" or "driver" any different from an elaboration?
I'm pretty sure we had this out f2f when we were working at adjacent desks, Luke, but I'm biting anyway.
The existence of the modular plug-in interface creates a line of demarcation.
Consider wall-socket 110 volt 60hz electricity. A lamp is not an elaboration of the wall-socket. It could get what it gets from the wall-socket from some other system. A three-prong grounded wall socket, however, /IS/ a derivative work of a two-pronger.
If Nvidia were trying to pass off an extended version of the module interface, which they are not, as their own, that would be a derivative work.
By crafting glue between the Linux modular interface and their hardware, they are not creating a derivative work, any more than snipping off one kind of power plug and attaching another in order to power a floor lamp somewhere that has different kinds of power outlets is.
your question -- how is this thing that is different from this other thing different from it -- could be turned around. How are they the same?
How /IS/ a plug-in an elaboration? I think it clearly is not one.
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, you wrote:
Consider wall-socket 110 volt 60hz electricity. A lamp is not an elaboration of the wall-socket. It could get what it gets from the wall-socket from some other system. A three-prong grounded wall socket, however, /IS/ a derivative work of a two-pronger.
Is the plug fitting the 100% custom and undocumented wall socket not a derived work of that same wall socket? Even if there is a division between the cord and the device, the cord itself would be "GPL"d and the GPL forbids it to link with the device.
By crafting glue between the Linux modular interface and their hardware, they are not creating a derivative work, any more than snipping off one kind of power plug and attaching another in order to power a floor lamp somewhere that has different kinds of power outlets is.
If the user created the wrapper himself, everything would indeed be clean.
your question -- how is this thing that is different from this other thing different from it -- could be turned around. How are they the same?
Linux has code for dealing with video cards. The nVidia driver just elaborates on the specific method of dealing with an nVidia video card. That is, they are exactly the same.
How /IS/ a plug-in an elaboration? I think it clearly is not one.
If the plug-in interface is abstracted enough, you might have an argument, but in the case of the nVidia driver itself, it merely elaborates on the Linux code that manages video cards.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
and the device, the cord itself would be "GPL"d and the GPL forbids it to link with the device.
The GPL doesn't forbid anything. The GPL allows distribution of things, with conditions.
Linux has code for dealing with video cards. The nVidia driver just elaborates on the specific method of dealing with an nVidia video card. That is, they are exactly the same.
That's a different matter. If the nVidia drivers are derivative works of other linux video card drivers, then they would be derivative works of something distributeed under the GPL. If they are clean original work that functions against the documented modular interface, they are not. Without knowing anything to indicate otherwise, my guess is that the nVidia drivers for linux are derivative code of nVidia drivers for Solaris or UnixWare or something comparable, that they already had in-house, and getting them to work with linux was a matter of studying just enough linux video card driver interface to get them to work, analogous to attaching a different kind of plug to an appliance. That approach would take them the least amount of work, and exempting whatever pieces they might have lifted from existing linux code from copyright under the functional language doctrine.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi#QID198 and its neighbors.
Request for comments: After completing my current degree, should I get another one, in law? That was my original plan, after all, back in the day.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
A work MUST include a substantial portion of the original work to be considered a derivative work. It will usually be an adaptation or translation of the original. Extensions to the original are only considered derivatives if they include the original, in whole or a substantial portion. I've already provided a link to copyright.gov in this thread with an explanation.
Once again, I stress: DEPENDENCE ON DOES NOT EQUAL DERIVATION OF
If you can find me one piece of solid, legally authoritative information (like, something in the CFR or still-valid case-law), then I might be willing to consider your argument.
Consider this example. Below, I quote a small portion of your email (which is a small fraction of this thread as a whole) to give context to this message. This quotation is well within the limits of fair-use. Even though you have automatic copyright on your contributions to this thread, the quote below is not considered to be infringing on your copyright due to fair-use. In addition, this email is not considered to be a derivative work of your email. It does not translate or adapt your original, it merely references it for context. This email is also not a derivative of the thread for the same reasons. This email does DEPEND ON your email and the thread for full context and usefulness, but it is not DERIVED FROM either.
Luke -Jr wrote: | How is a "plug-in" or "driver" any different from an elaboration?
- -- ~Bradley Hook Education Systems Administrator Kansas State School for the Blind 1100 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66102 Voice: (913) 281-3308 ext. 363 Mobile: (913) 645-9958 Facsimile: (913) 281-3104 http://www.kssb.net
****************************************************************************************** Confidentiality Statement: This message and accompanying documents are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and contain information intended for the specified individual(s) only. This information is confidential unless explicitly indicated otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by E-mail, and delete the original message. ******************************************************************************************
--- Luke -Jr luke@dashjr.org wrote:
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, you wrote:
*sigh*
http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm
Lawyers! Giving legal advice without money! Looks like they specialize in this stuff! Sweet!
Interesting how they cite, but ignore this part: A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ''derivative work''.
How is a "plug-in" or "driver" any different from an elaboration?
Look up "fair use" provisions in Copyright Law sometime. The basic premise of "fair use" is that a work can use a small portion of another work without requiring permission from the copyright holder.
The dinky bit of Linux header file code used to create the nVidia driver wrapper is so small that it most likely fits within the provisions of "fair use" and thus device drivers aren't elaborations.
But in any case, Greg KH is not a lawyer. These folks are lawyers. And they state that it is possible to create a LEGAL closed-source kernel module:
"Derivative works are not going to encompass plug-ins and device drivers that are designed to be linked from other off-the-shelf, unmodified, programs. If Linux is designed to accept separately-designed plug-in programs, you dont create a derivative work by merely running such a program under Linux, even if you have to look at the Linux source code to learn how to do so."
Greg KH says that lawyers have told Greg that closed-source kernel modules are all illegal, but Greg can't verify his statement". These actual lawyers state that Greg's claims about closed-source kernel modules are WRONG. Personally, I'll take the opinion of the lawyer over the non-lawyer in matters of law.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Bradley Hook -
David Nicol -
Leo Mauler -
Luke -Jr