[olug] OT: more Hans goodness

[Luke -Jr]

On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Bill Brush wrote:
> Based on my reading, I don't think that a module legally meets the
> definition of a derivative work.  You, may of course, disagree with my
> reading. 

I think a driver is quite clearly an elaboration.

> I think the fact that no one with standing to contest these drivers has done
> so is a convincing circumstantial corroboration of my point however.

Actually, many (most?) Linux developers consider binary modules to be illegal. 
Greg K-H, one of the 'major' developers, has also spoken with IP lawyers 
regarding the matter, and they all agree that binary modules are illegal.

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
	"Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal. That's it, it is very
	 simple. I've had the misfortune of talking to a lot of different IP lawyers
	 over the years about this topic, and every one that I've talked to all agree
	 that there is no way that anyone can create a Linux kernel module, today,
	 that can be closed source. It just violates the GPL due to fun things like
	 derivative works and linking and other stuff. Again, it's very simple.
	
	 Now no lawyer will ever come out in public and say this, as lawyer really
	 aren't allowed to make public statements like this at all. But if you hire
	 one, and talk to them in the client/lawyer setting, they will advise you of
	 this issue."