| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But |
| 4 |
> we're talking about... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download |
| 9 |
something. You'll notice that even the RIAA doesn't sue people who |
| 10 |
download music - they sue people who UPLOAD it. They are on far more |
| 11 |
solid legal ground doing the latter. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 2. Patching it. |
| 14 |
> 3. Linking it with closed source code. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You're not linking the kernel with closed source code. You're linking |
| 17 |
closed source code with the kernel. You're not making any changes to |
| 18 |
the kernel itself in the process. I'm not even sure why you'd have to |
| 19 |
patch the kernel. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> 4. Distributing the result. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
You're distributing the closed source part that you wrote. You don't |
| 24 |
have to redistribute the kernel, since the intended recipient of your |
| 25 |
driver already has it. The only bits of the kernel that end up in the |
| 26 |
code you distribute are some symbol names. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on |
| 30 |
> you to show that you were allowed to do it. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Please cite a law that says you're not allowed to receive a copy of a |
| 33 |
copyrighted work without a license. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Even if that were so, the GPL gives you permission to make as many |
| 36 |
unmodified copies of the kernel as you wish. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy |
| 39 |
> of copyrighted stuff" =P |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
You're not copying anything that is copyrighted by Linus and co, and |
| 42 |
that is my point. Just what is AMD/Nvidia distributing that Linus |
| 43 |
wrote? |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Rich |
Archives