| 1 |
On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
>> |
| 3 |
>> Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and |
| 4 |
>> reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders |
| 5 |
>> have made it clear that you have no license to do so. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not copying anything that |
| 9 |
> I didn't write. I'm the copyright holder of the binary kernel module. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But |
| 13 |
we're talking about... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it. |
| 16 |
2. Patching it. |
| 17 |
3. Linking it with closed source code. |
| 18 |
4. Distributing the result. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
(If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Step #1 is illegal unless you have a licence. The burden of proof is on |
| 23 |
you to show that you were allowed to do it. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> That is why I want you to actually look up the letter of the law, |
| 28 |
> because if the specific action being done isn't in the letter of the |
| 29 |
> law, then those claiming copyright have an uphill battle ahead of |
| 30 |
> them. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I'm not going to go look up whatever statute says "you can't make a copy |
| 34 |
of copyrighted stuff" =P |
Archives