[3400] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Binary Driver Issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dennis)
Sat Jun 22 11:55:39 1996
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:58:42 -0400
To: shagboy@thecia.net
From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis)
Cc: linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
>On Fri, 21 Jun 1996, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> > with the core kernel code itself. A licensor only has rights over their
>> > own code. When you buy a development kit from Microsoft you're paying
>> > for the information on how the O/S works. If you figure it out without
the docs
>> > or the kit they cant stop you from selling or using it because they
didnt get
>> > their fee.
>>
>> There are precedents that state the opposite. Stac, makers of Stacker,
>> lost part of a suit with MS, that involved their reverse engineering part
>> of the boot up sequence of DOS that enabled fairly seemless integration
>> of Stacker with DOS.
>
>That's because "reverse engineering" is expressly forbidden by the
>license. If you figure out the API, however, they can't do a thing.
>Now, whether or not you're reverse engineering when you just "learn" the
>API is debatable, but the two examples above are not the same thing.
This is a pretty interesting discussion...and it seems that many are forgetting
that an operating system provides services for applications and drivers...thats
what an O/S is. The debate over which services (or that the use of any service)
viotates the license to use the O/S is almost humorous. The stacker case is
very different and arguably irrelevant because Stacker fundamentally
modified the
function of a major group of services that the O/S provided, effectively
changing
the product. To compare this to a driver for a commercial add-on product is
fairly ridiculous.
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
