[3298] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Binary Driver Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis)
Tue Jun 18 16:23:08 1996
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:30:24 -0400
To: Jim Nance <Jim_Nance@avanticorp.com>
From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
>Mike Kilburn wrote:
>
>> Binary only drivers need to somehow be classified into those which are
>> true hardware drivers and those which are "value-added" software extentions
>> to the Linux kernel which in my view violate the GPL. I know this is tough
>> and can be subjective and I really dont know how it could be done. Take
>> the following example:
>
>Hi Mike,
> I am using part of your message as a jumping off point. Please dont
>feel that I am attacking you, or even that I necessarily disagree with
>you.
>
>I think there is a strong temptation to interpret the GPL on the basis of
>what we want it to mean, or what we intended it to mean, rather than as
>a legal document. I believe that we should resist this temptation.
>The legality of things like binary only modules can only really be decided
>if someone sues someone else over the issue and a court issues a ruling.
>We can get some idea of how a court would rule (at least in a particular
>county) by looking at prior rulings in similar cases. Perhaps we should
>make a list of relivant cases. The only case I know about was a point
>in the dispute between Microsoft and Stacker (sp?). Microsoft claimed
>that Stacker violated their copyrights because Stacker's product modified
>the MSDOS binary. The court sided with Stacker.
The difference is you have to prove DAMAGES to sue at all. Since there
is no financial stake with LINUX, you can never prove anything. If there is no
loss by violating a license, then there can be no enforcement even if it
is clearly violated. In the above case, microsoft tried to prove copyright
violation,
because Stacker made millions on the resulting product, which microsoft
believed that their code was a part of. However, if stacker was free,
or MS-DOS was free, they could not have sued at all.
No binary add-on can reduce the availability or value that you get from
the O/S. No one is forcing you to use it. There is no legal or ethical issue
here, except for the guys that are peeved because they can't have source
for neat stuff that they'd like to have. Too bad.
>
>There is the seperate issue of the ethics of doing something which would
>be legal under the GPL but contrary to the wishes of the authors of the
>software. In my mind ethical issues such as this are very dependant
>on someones motivations for doing something.
Any of you guys ever read "Animal Farm"?. You're starting to think like
the establishment that you all say you despise.
Dennis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com
Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For
Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame
Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD
and LINUX
