| 1 |
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:14:19 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> >> |
| 4 |
> >> Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and |
| 5 |
> >> reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders |
| 6 |
> >> have made it clear that you have no license to do so. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that |
| 10 |
> > I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But |
| 14 |
> we're talking about... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 17 |
> 2. Patching it. |
| 18 |
> 3. Linking it with closed source code. |
| 19 |
> 4. Distributing the result. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> (If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on |
| 24 |
> you to show that you were allowed to do it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You have the license, the GPL allows you to do steps 1-3. Step 4 is only |
| 27 |
illegal if it's a derived work, so the question, as Rich stated, is whether or |
| 28 |
nor is a derived work. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it |
| 31 |
doesn't work without it? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, |
| 35 |
> > because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the |
| 36 |
> > law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of |
| 37 |
> > them. |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy |
| 41 |
> of copyrighted stuff" =P |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Fernando Rodriguez |
Archives