[olug] OT: more Hans goodness

[Will Langford]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Luke -Jr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 10 July 2008, Kevin wrote:
>> One line? How about:
>> {
>>
>> Or what about:
>> while true
>
> Obviously unrelated, since neither is GPL'd, and the second is invalid in
> every language I know of.
>
> Hint #1: Copyright is only applied to works that took intellect to create.
>
> Hint #2: Copyright only prevents you from copying; if you come up with the
>         same thing on your own (for example, when there is only one way to do
>         it), there is no problem


I find the brace / common code practice argument utterly unrelated to
the discussion.

The question isn't about code that is similar or possibly a copy, it's
about requiring a small portion of GPL'd code in order for your 'work'
to function.

Are you modifying the original files ? No, the kernel and pre existing
modules are 100% the same as they were after your work.

Are you modifying the original work ? Given that the original work is
left entirely in tact and does not need your addition to build, I
dunno.  If a GPL'd program scans a directory for libraries or data
files... and I create a new closed source library or data file that
the original program ends up running... am I a derivative work ?
Regarding data file -> think some kind of weird encrypted file based
situation I can't come up with at the moment.

Is your work an elaboration ? By itself, your work is utterly
meaningless.  You could argue that anything that mimics the linux
kernel at that level would work with the module -- but the complexity
of the communication between the two makes that insanely improbable.
As a curious note: oldschool os/2 win3.1 interoperability and also
wine.  But I do believe that these two examples are a fairly decent
argument as to 'nothing could talk to the kernel without using the
original sauce!'.  Irrelavent for the #include discussion, however
since the binary driver *does* use the original sauce although
distributed separately.

Does the fact that your own work does NOT build without the GPL'd work
mean you are a direct (clauses-for-copyright) ?  I dunno ?

Given that new work in no way attempts to replace or copy the original
work... ?  By using the include, are you 'copying' the module
interaction bits ?

As mentioned above, does the fact that your work is distributed
separately change things any ?  Would your work then be considered a
"patch" or modification to the original *work* (obviously not in a
file sense, but in an overall sense).

Out of curiousity, does the kernel interact with the user ?  Is it
required under the GPL to display its license under section 2c ?

-Will