Message-Id: <200203121905.OAA04526@www.wgcr.org> From: Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:05:53 -0500 Subject: [suse-sparc] Linux copyright (was:Re: [suse-sparc] Will there be a SuSE 8.0 for Sparc?)
[This is my last message on this topic in the suse-sparc public forum]
On Tuesday 12 March 2002 12:40 pm, IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USNR-R wrote:
> concerning legislative intent) is defined to mean not just code which is
> inclusive of a former source code, but that is completely reliant in its
> current state on a different product for its functionality.
> In other words, Postgress SQL is not a derivative work because
> the bulk of its functionality would not need to be rewritten to move it
> from Linux to BSD. However, since YAST in fact is a very specific piece
> of software for controlling files within Linux this argument becomes
> moot, and does not ply easily to the instant case.
You are again confusing the distribution with the kernel. YaST, thanks to
autoconf/automake and the like, is probably extremely portable. It could
probably be recompiled to run on a Solaris system that had RPM installed.
Knowing the code produced by SuSE's programmers, and not actually looking at
the code for YaST, even the file locations and formats are probably easily
changed as well.
In fact, YaST as a separate OS-configuration product would be something I
would likely pay for, especially for Solaris.
Now, which specific work or works is YaST derivative of? Linux doesn't count
as a specific work unless you are talking about the kernel.
> I would please request that you tell me from where you get this
> information that source code must be duplicated to be a derivative work?
Well, in the field of books, for instance, copyright case law holds that a
'spin-off' book using the same situations, characters, etc, could qualify as
a derivative work.
However, the GPL itself seems to use this definition in paragraph 2.
The actual definition in the Copyright Act is: a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast,
transformed, or adapted.
'Derivative work' means that it is the original work in a modified form.
SuSE's modifications to each package are encapsulated with each package: that
is, on the source RPM disc you have not only the source to the original
program but the source to all SuSE modifications, along with a changelog
describing and dating the modification. (As RPM maintainer for the
PostgreSQL Global Development Group, I am familiar with those -- even though
the PostgreSQL BSD license doesn't require them like the GPL does)
Making the translation to binary from source is making a derivative work --
and is explicitly allowed by the GPL. Printing a t-shirt with the source
code on it is a derivative work, as would be a radio broadcast of a reading
of the source code (which is actually happening for the Linux kernel! :-)).
But, more importantly, what does the COPYING document distributed with the
Linux kernel say about derivative works? Quoting:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ license (ie v2), unless explicitly otherwise
stated.
Linus Torvalds
End quote. This file is distributed with your kernel package -- on my Red Hat
7.2 system it is in /usr/src/linux-2.4.9-13/COPYING. Note that the Linux
kernel is not licensed under a vanilla GPL, and note further that Linus has
limited which GPL version may be applied. This distinction is what allows
binary-only modules to be distributed, such as the one for the Lucent
Winmodem (which I use). In fact, this NOTE is the only permission you have
to distribute a non-GPL or non-GPL-compliant licensed program for Linux.
Linus specifically disclaims copyright for any user program that uses
standard kernel calls to access the kernel. The system call interface is
only directly used by very few programs -- glibc is the primary one of those,
and it's LGPLd.
Incidentally, YaST _is_ a derivative work of glibc. Which is OK since glibc
is not under the GPL, but under the LGPL, which specifically allows non-free
programs to link in the library.
> I am curious how much time you have studied this issue? I know that I
> have spent a fair amount of time researching in the past for a law
> student, so I am not speaking from a position absent references.
I have spent the better part of ten years studying this issue. I have not
given it exclusive study, nor has it been 'formal' study. But it was
interesting following the kernel developers discussions from many years ago
up through now. Nor do I claim to be a lawyer -- I just enjoy computers and
computer software -- but it pays to be informed when writing code.
I'm sure SuSE's lawyers have thought all this through, though. Otherwise
YaST would be under a different license.
-- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-sparc-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands, e-mail: suse-sparc-help@suse.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.0 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 11:04:27 PST