spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

blah.

So, since spinlocks and semaphores are (a) inline and #included into your code, and (b) required for just about sane interoperation with Linux...

does this mean that all binary-only modules that #include kernel code such as spinlocks are violating the GPL? IOW just about every binary module out there, I would think...

I'm sure this would make extremeists happy, but I personally don't mind binary-only modules as long as the binary-only code [ignoring the #included kernel code] cannot be considered a derived work.

But who knows if #include'd code constitutes a derived work :(

Jeff

Only if the #included snippets of code are large enough to be protected by copyright, which might be true of the stuff in mm_inline.h and of some of the semaphore code, but probably isn't true of the spinlock code.

Even if the code #included is large enough to be protected by copyright I don't know if the code including it would be considered a derived work. Many questions remaining...

regards,

Rik

Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

(US-Centric, since that's where I'm from, live, and code)

Since you're functionally using it, and it's not a protected use (Satire, etc, though some would argue that the nvidia drivers are a mockery...), I would tend to think Fair Use wouldn't apply in this case. Are there any IP Lawyers in the house?

The only analogy i can think of is a remix of songs, and several people have gotten into wonderfully large lawsuits over that.

This basically all falls upon the shoulders of whoever wrote the spinlock code on whatever platform you're compiling for...

At this point, I think it's safe to say that the days of the legally unencumbered binary-only module (read: binary-only modules you aren't liable to get sued for) are numbered. Personally, I'm a little saddened at the loss of openness, but won't miss weird binary-only problems.
--
/jbm, but you can call me Josh. Really, you can!
"What's a metaphor?" "For sheep to graze in"
7958 1C1C 306A CDF8 4468 3EDE 1F93 F49D 5FA1 49C4

You can copyright songs, but not individual musical notes.

Likewise, snippets of code aren't copyrightable if they're below a certain "triviality size".

No, this is an issue of legislation and case law. Some copyright holders (*eyes hollywood*) would like to be able to decide such things for themselves, but this isn't something copyright holders can decide...

regards,

Rik

Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

I don't pretend to be current on all the issues involved, but I've always been under the impression that Linus has insisted that binary-only drivers aren't derived works, with respect to the GPL.

If someone is worried they are, make all future headers state it explicitly:

"Including this header in a Linux kernel module shall not be construed to constitute a derived work."

Ross Vandegrift
[email protected]

A Pope has a Water Cannon.                               It is a Water Cannon.
He fires Holy-Water from it.                        It is a Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses it.                                 It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses the Hell out of it.          It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He has it pierced.                It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He makes it official.      It is a Cannon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
Batman and Robin arrive.                                       He shoots them.

When you GPL a piece of software, you sign over your rights to the FSF. Therefore, there is very little that can be done about this; from a legal perspective, the FSF _itself_ determines what is and what isn't construed as a derived work.

- David McIlwraith
----- Original Message -----
From: Ross Vandegrift <[email protected]>
To: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

I don't pretend to be current on all the issues involved, but I've always been under the impression that Linus has insisted that binary-only drivers aren't derived works, with respect to the GPL.

If someone is worried they are, make all future headers state it explicitly:

"Including this header in a Linux kernel module shall not be construed to constitute a derived work."

--
Ross Vandegrift
[email protected]

A Pope has a Water Cannon. It is a Water Cannon.
He fires Holy-Water from it. It is a Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses it. It is a Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He Blesses the Hell out of it. It is a Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He has it pierced. It is a Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
He makes it official. It is a Cannon Holey Wholly Holy Holy-Water Cannon.
Batman and Robin arrive. He shoots them.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

What pile if CRACK are you smoking?

Just because I assign parts of my IP portfolio to GPL does not give anything to FSF and they have no rights or assignment. When did the kernel become assigned to FSF?

Getting warmer,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Blatantly false. Have you even _read_ the GPL? It doesn't seem that way - in which case why are you discussing it?

Please get your facts straight. While you're at it, please avoid making yourself look like an idiot in the future.

[snip]

I think he means when you contribute to a GNU piece of code? They ask you to sign over your copyright so they can enforce it more easily in court.

Or so they say. They could also use this power for evil. Also, what's up with that "GPL version 2 or later" stuff? I always take that out of my licenses. While I understand that if I die, its then sort of trapped under GPL2, I really don't want whoever decides to make the next GPL changing the licensing on my program significantly...

--Zac

Linus has said much the reverse if you look back. Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work. In some ways thats not even directly relevant

The double negative unwrapped:

"Being a module doesnt make it not a derivative work."

'Being a module does (not) make it not a derivative work.' 'Being a module does (not) make it (not) a derivative work.'

'Being a module does make it a derivative work.'

Is this the intent of the statement?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

No

Excellent!

Now if Linus would just make to position clear.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

That's faulty grammar and faulty logic. "A" does not require "not B".

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

So fix the intent and make it clear.
I am not an english major.
I generally try to keep you disk storage alive.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Rik van Riel:

Right, you need atleast a X number of notes to make it a copyrighted piece, doesn't have to be a whole song, tho. If someone snags 10-20 secs of a song, and puts it into his/her song that's violation of the copyrights (given that the person didn't ask for permission). But, then there's "what's the minimum"-question, and with code that's hard, and you would probably need a lawyer and a few settlements in the court-systems, if not even more, to get an agreement on this.

Thomas

7 seconds for music.

What's 7 seconds worth of code? :)

--
Dana Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada

Ahh, but that's 7 seconds of *PREFORMED* music. This implies that no matter how much past work has gone into it, if it can be run in under 7 seconds it can't be copyrighted. I rather like this interpretation.
Nick

How about 7% of code max that can pollute the headers and not taint the closed source.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

7% of the code you're takeing from, or 7% of the code you're adding to? Either of these can be abused badly. What do you count? Words? Lines? Uncommented lines? Non-blank uncommented lines? I think it should and can be argued that the 7 second rule is sound for code as well as music.
Nick

Even more fun is that this limit probably varies per country and governments are tending towards applying their own law against every work which is made available to their country, regardless of where it is being published from...

Rik

Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

Greetings LKML,

There is an interesting paradox to now consider.

Now the folks who invisioned the process to "taint" a kernel have by default given the rule of exemption to the use of binary only. The very process used to detect and determine "taint", has itself approved the use of binary only! If this was not the case, then the detection process would have rejected the loading. Since this in not the end result, the claim is and will be made the headers and all api's are exempt, period.

The headers and api's are required to even obtain functionality.

The test for Tainted status below:

"Module Size Used by Tainted: P"

It allows/allowed a binary module to load.

If Linux is to truly only a GPL binary module friendly environment, then it must enforce the rules. Therefore it must forcablely reject the attempt to load any and all binaries which are not GPL. Regardless if the license is commerial yet the source code is available.

Think long and hard before this step is taken, as it will crush the viablity of Linux in many key places today and will delay future deployment.

This shall force all distos to change policy and prevent the loading of anything which is not GPL and they have the source code to ship. Additionall

To this point, the issue is closed on the binary modules.

/*
* The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free
* software modules
*

 *      "GPL"                           [GNU Public License v2 or later]
 *      "GPL and additional rights"     [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
 *      "Dual BSD/GPL"                  [GNU Public License v2 or BSD license choice]
 *      "Dual MPL/GPL"                  [GNU Public License v2 or Mozilla license choice]
 *
 * The following other idents are available
 *
 *      "Proprietary"                   [Non free products]
 *
 * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it is the
 * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked with GPL
 * is a GPL combined work.
 *
 *
 * This exists for several reasons
 * 1.   So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their setup
 *      is free
 * 2.   So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary modules
 * 3.   So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies

*/

Again, this very file ./linux/include/linux/module.h grants permission for:
"Proprietary" [Non free products]

Now disbute the kernel!

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

PS The issue which is not closed is the legal status of what is a derived
work and what is an original work. This shall be settled in court when it is challanged.

How should it? The compiler (specifically, the C preprocessor) includes the code, thus it is not the AUTHOR violating the GPL.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rik van Riel" <[email protected]>
To: "Jeff Garzik" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules

Linux...

href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

"Your honour, he didn't die because I shot him; he died because he tried to catch the bullet, with his chest..."

If the compiler includes a .h file, it happens because the programmer told it to do so, using a #include.

The programmer (or the copyright holder of the code) is responsible.

regards,

Rik

Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

I was recently re-reading the GPL and I came to the following conclusion:

The GPL is only an issue if the software is *distributed* with GPL software. Meaning -- it is not legal to distribute a linux kernel that contains non-GPL code, however, it *is* legal for an administrator to install linux, and then download a copy of the dynamically linked module from a separate web site, under a different (incompatible) license, and load it into the kernel. This new kernel image is a 'derived work', however, as long as the new kernel image is not distributed to 'the public', the GPL terms do *not* come into play.

While I believe my understanding on this issue to be correct, I still haven't answered the original question... is it legal to distribute a non-GPL binary that used a GPL header file to be compiled? Is the answer to this different depending on the amount of code that is generated using the GPL header file as source (i.e. inlined functions)?

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Le mer 20/11/2002 à 09:12, Mark Mielke a écrit :

Yeah, that's precisely the problem here: the binary-only module is distributed with included spinlock code, which *is* GPL.

That doesnt neccessarily make it a derived work. Suppose I publish a book including a lawyer who says "Your honour I ...". That doesn't make it a derivative of some previous work I read that used the same phrase.

Equally if I paraphase the entire court scene but use no identical words it may be a derived work.

Stop thinking about this as a mathematical question. It isnt about the union of sets of instructions.

Alan

Well stated. Further "spin-locks" are generic things that have nothing to do with Linux, much less GPL. It has been pretty much established that there are some kernel internals that writers have insisted cannot be accessed except by GPL code. These are typically complex things that can be easily broken by incorrect access. Therefore, the writer insists that if you access that procedure, or tamper with the elements of some structure, then your code must be GPL so that it may be publicly scrutinized. There is other kernel code that is so obvious that, even though an incorrect access can break things, the writer figured that if you break it, you just keep the pieces. So, it boils down to what lawyers call "intent". And as Alan stated, it isn't mathematics.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Bush : The Fourth Reich of America

This can be made clean if all the inlined C in the headers are pushed back to an actual .c file and the make it function to call as an extern. So the solution is to make a patch and publish that patch which cleans the out the C code in question and move the associacted GPL license to the new .c files. This is proper and legal as structs are just the glue or api.

So if I publish this patch where it can be freely available for usage by all, I comply with GPL. This also removes any of the "extremists" points of the smallest amount of GPL code invoked by the compiler can not touch pure code.

Any arguments why this will not work?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

} This can be made clean if all the inlined C in the headers are pushed } back to an actual .c file and the make it function to call as an extern. } So the solution is to make a patch and publish that patch which cleans the } out the C code in question and move the associacted GPL license to the new } .c files. This is proper and legal as structs are just the glue or api. }
} So if I publish this patch where it can be freely available for usage by } all, I comply with GPL. This also removes any of the "extremists" points } of the smallest amount of GPL code invoked by the compiler can not touch } pure code.
}
} Any arguments why this will not work?

Maybe something else would be better. Adding -fno-inline to the build might be more useful. It makes things a bit cleaner.

It's a nasty mess to have to do this for every subsystem when someone gets a wild-hair and starts inline-ing things without thinking.

Well since there is a fork for everything else, how about a business-linux-2.{4,5} fork?

As a place to make it even harder for the extremist to whine and cry over the usages of binary only modules.

Comments?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

} Well since there is a fork for everything else, how about a } business-linux-2.{4,5} fork?
}
} As a place to make it even harder for the extremist to whine and cry over } the usages of binary only modules.
}
} Comments?

Maybe it's best to not add yet another fork. I just managed to dis-entangle myself from maintaining some trees and wouldn't wish that on anyone else. A single config option that adds -fno-inline wouldn't be fork-worthy.

As for extremists complaining... I think you'd just give them a target and a forum rather than quiet them.

So " -fno-inline " should be enough to squelch the extremists?

So lets hear from the extremists who do not have the money to litigate yet can scare people away with noise and their angery rants. Sort of what LA has with the gang turf wars. The ones who are to afraid to show thier face but will stab in the back in the right moment.

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Its not relevant to the discussion even.

That's $topic AFAICS. Some armchair lawyers are alleging that #include'ing GPL'd kernel code into non-GPL'd binary kernel module makes that module a derivative work and thus must be GPL'd itself.

Have we decided that #include'ing GPL'd code does, or does not, taint otherwise "license-clean" code that includes the GPL'd code?

The only thing I've seen from Linus is him mentioning that this is a "grey area". Given this message:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103487469728730&w=2

we fall to copyright law, and wonder aloud if an obviously-non-derived work #includes GPL'd code, does it become derived?

Jeff

Ask a lawyer - and the answer mostly is "it depends"

Example 1

I paste your name and address into my document does it become a derived work

Example 2

I paste your poem into my document does it become a derived work

So #include isnt terribly relevant 8)

So it is business as usual, all sabre noise but none drawn. Everyone is scared of the lawyers and all it would do is feed the sharks and nobody makes any money but them.

So it is a draw ?

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Basically.

Rik

Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>

Well, I hope not to see in litigation and will try to do the correct thing. Who knows I may even decide to empower Linux with some new technology to level the playing field of storage. You heard it, I still am willing to opensource a version to help set the standard for it to be done the correct and proper way.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

A pointless war has two losers.

Alan

Well I like it!

Now I can make a little money and get back to finishing out the 2.5/2.4 ATA/SATA stuff which is the good free stuff people depend on now!

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

I like:

"When you're arguing with an idiot, two idiots are arguing"

Told to me by Victor Yodaiken (who suggested I tattoo it on the tops of my hands and look down a lot while I'm flaming. Good idea, that.)

---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Larry McVoy wrote:
[snip]

If that isn't in 'fortune', it should be. :) (Hmm... even better, it should be in /.'s fortune file... as its _only_ entry. ;) )

Eli
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------

It takes a 400k patch to make the kernel build with -fno-inline.

The patch is generated by a script which weeds out all the `extern inline's. And then you need another little patch which provides stub implementations of __this_fixmap_does_not_exist() and __br_lock_usage_bug().

The extern-inline-weeder script is from Jim Houston.

#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# This script changes "extern inline" to "static inline" in header

# files.  I did this so that I could use -finstrument-functions to
# trace Linux kernel code.  The script is pretty stupid if it finds
# extern and inline togther its likely to make a change.  It removes
# the inline from forward references and changes extern to static
# for definitions.

open(FIND, "find . -name \*.[ch] |") || die "couldn't run find on *.[ch]\n";

while ($f = <FIND>) {
	chop $f;
	if (!open(FILE, $f)) {
		print STDERR "Can't open $f\n";
		next;
	}
#	print STDERR "scanning $f\n";
	undef $file_content;
	$file_content = "";
	$modified = 0;
OUT:
	while ($line = <FILE>) {
		# check for comment, ignore lines that start with 
		# a comment.  Ignore block comments
		if ($line =~ /^\s*\/\*.*\*\//) {
			$file_content .= $line;
			next;
		}
		if ($line =~ /^\s*\/\*/) {
			$file_content .= $line;
			while ($line = <FILE>) {
				$file_content .= $line;
				if ($line =~ /\*\//) { 
					next OUT;
				}
			}
			print STDERR "??? $f: end of file in comment?";
			
		}
		if ($line  =~ /extern\s+(.*)(inline|__inline|__inline__)\s/) {
			$extra = 0;
			if ($line =~ /^#define/) {
				# Alpha & ARM have defines
				# for extern inline which I'm
				#ignoring for now.
				$file_content .= $line;
				next;
			}
			while (!($line =~ /;|{/)) {
				if (!($nl = <FILE>)) {
					die "hit EOF... file=$f\n";
				}
				if (++$extra > 8) {
					print STDERR "??? $f: $line";
					last;
				}
				$line .= $nl;
			}
			if ($line =~ /{/) {
				$line =~ s/extern/static/;
				$modified = 1;
			} elsif ($line =~ /;/) {
				$line =~ s/[ 	]*__inline__[ 	]*/ /;
				$line =~ s/[ 	]*__inline[ 	]*/ /;
				$line =~ s/[ 	]*inline[ 	]*/ /;
				$modified = 1;
			}
		}
		$file_content .= $line;
	}
	close(FILE);
	$name = $f . ".orig";
	if ($modified && -e $name) {
		print STDERR "$name already exists - no changes made\n";
		next;
	}
	if ($modified) {

# if (link($f, $name)) {
# unlink($f);
# } else {
# print STDERR "Can't move $f to $name\n";
# next;
# }

		if (!open(FILE, ">$f")) {
			prinf STDERR "Can't open $f for output\n";
			next;
		}
		print FILE $file_content;
		close(FILE);
	}
}

make it ignore BK and/or SCCS files.

	next if m|SCCS/s\.|;
	next if m|BitKeeper/|;

---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

So if it bugs you so much, why doing you start the process to sue all the places everyone know the violation exist? First go for the major ones lin the embedded space. So where is you lawyer and you fat pile of cash to run you war against the use of Linux in Business?

Now lets wreck the one decent video driver that happens to be closed source.

Can we as REDMOND ?

Later!

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

It is if the AUTHOR then decides to distribute the resulting binary which would contain a mix of GPL and non GPL work..

The mix is a direct result of developers knowingly inlining critical C code into the headers. If this code was placed in proper .c files and not set in a .h then the potential for accidental mixing is removed.

This would limit and restrict the headers to being structs and extern functions to call.

This would be the first step to narrow the grey and broaden the black and white.

I expect to be showered with boos and go away stupid, followed by "We are not here to make it easy for binary modules! Go use BSD you moron!!!".

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

Some (not all) of the inlined functions are 'inline' to accelerate the kernel.

Perhaps, though, the inlined functions should be declared:

   #ifdef __GNUC__
   #  define INLINE extern inline
   #else
   #  define INLINE inline
   #endif

   #ifdef GPL
   INLINE type function (arguments)
   {
      ...
   }
   #else
   INLINE type function (arguments);
   #endif

This would be neat in that no real additional code would be brought into the module, however, there is a possibility that the module would run a little bit slower - a small incentive to GPL the module...

Of course, this would mean that any #define's still sitting around that contributed code of significance should be replaced with possibly inlined functions...

Would this make everybody happy?

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Point is noted and the performance issue stands on its own as a strike against removing the inline, this is a given. Now what is the performance difference if the inline is moved to a .c and makd and extern inline in the .h ?

The object of the question is determine if there is a peformance break point to consider the moving of a inlined C code to a proper .c file.

Obviously adding a new kernel fork to move around the inline game will be painful but if it narrows the gap between black and white to remove the chance of accidentail GPL code inclusion. It may be worth it to consider.

Comments and Flames welcome.

Cheers,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

[...]

Please review prior posts in this thread, notably from Andrew Morton and Cort Dougan. They describe a much better method of doing this.

It still doesn't handle macros, though they are much less of a worry since Linux kernel emphasizes inlines over macros.

Jeff

I just scanned it over and it isn't exactly the same as what I suggested.

Re-stating for clarity: Header files should use 'extern inline' ('inline' for C99) to declare inline functions in "GPL-mode" and 'extern' (or no qualifer) should be used to declare only the prototype in "non-GPL-mode". The benefit of this is that GPL code continues to work as is with no speed degradation, but non-GPL source code will not require GPL code in the object code.

Converting 'extern inline' to 'static inline' doesn't accomplish very much, except to force referenced code to be inlined into each object code. This is the opposite effect of 'ensure that no GPL code is compiled into a non-GPL object file'.

mark

[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Lets see, who to sue first?

The embedded people? The video card people? The people who ship binary drivers? All the people who sell appliances? Oh please sue me, because I license binary only drivers for various appliances. This is a the beginning of era of IP vultures and will quickly kill the use of Linux.

Free software does not make a dime with out value add.

So now that all the distros have their patch bomb hell that is not adopted in the main stream, and some you can not download period. Sure they "open source" the patches. Sure some have been caught putting in patches to allow known binary extentions. Then there was MOSIX in the past.

What the hell happened to Linux being a flexable tool, it is just a kernel!

Well I am the two face bard(1) running around with a band of people force others to open spec for the creation of open source. Gee, some people have contributed a lot and others less and remainder zero. I guess it is time to start the corporate litigation party raiders and become no better than whom we all look down upon. Oh HAIL Redmond we are soon to follow your path to success and failure.

Somebody please tell me where I can invoice all the users of IDE/ATA/SATA in the world of Linux. Since I have about $30K in bills I paid myself to attend meeting, stop CPRM/DMCA from openly screwing the hardware, sign licensing agreements currently with more $25K outstanding to be potentially collected, single handedly bring most of the chipset hardware vendors to the table of OPEN SOURCE yet I suffer the legal binds of the NDA's to bring you free drivers.

So the minute somebody wants to make a little money for the return to keep them in a position to continue to offer you open source, the IP VULTURES are out in full force to steal and taint quality closed IP for using just the stinking headers? Well I will be looking at using another OS which is more business friendly now, because even though I would follow the rules of forcable making my commerial product incapable of being compiled into the kernel, there will be some "PISS ANT LOSER" ready to SUE me for just using the headers. NICE !

Oh please bring it one, I have found my blow torch, flame thrower, and to hell with the asbestos suit!! It is winter time and lets make it HOT!

Yippe KIA-AHHY Mother F***** !

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

(1) bard, a story teller

Greeting Jeff and Eben,

Eben, if I understand you are presently or in the past the general council for FSF arguments and legal briefs, would you be kind enough to set a legal position of the nature of headers in any environment. I would have #include RMS but his position is known, and may have violated a license.

Now the joke is over, but it has significant implications now.

Soon the question will be raised and either you or somebody else will be called to answer and justify the point. So please send me a quote for the estimated cost of a legal brief on the specifics related to the content below. If I can afford it, I will pay for it to begin the process of setting the legal guides of usage of binary only drivers which only use the headers of a given kernel.

Given the context of embedded software based on GPL, VAR appliance builders, large|mid|small cap companies, individuals, etc... who are using and improving the quality of entire package because it benefits them to do so and it is the right thing to do.

So the issue come down to the following:

Will the few idealist in the world who dream the impossible, make it impossible to for the realist whom are trying to follow but have to make money to justify the goal. There appears to be a push to kill the dream by forcing the folks who believe in the goals but now will have to justify their position and risk. If the risk of litigation becomes to high, even for those who follow the rules and promote compliance to rules set forth in the past, people will adopt another environment.

Now we are in quite a dangerous position presently, as the strength and maturity of the Linux Community of Contributors rises to the what everyone knew it could be, to have find out it is a house of cards build on sand and not pilars of stone set on bedrock.

I have already carpet bombed the mailing list in sheer anger.

Now it is time to put the rubber on the road, and it costs money. So again I do not have an endless pile of money to do it alone, but I have to risk it all now including a potential for personal bankruptecy, if I stand a chance to help keep the dream alive. Please provide me a quote for the brief and the estimated time to complete.

Sincerely,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

I apologize if it is not clear, as I am trying to not mix words.

There are a whole pile of rules and precedents over this. For one, a certain code size limit applies, as does the notion of whether there's any creative input (for example, constants and structure definitions are not considered creative, because they are simply required for an interface to work).

One argument is that since the interfaces require you to manipulate the locks in a particular way, and only a given set of instructions will do those manipulations correctly, then any correct implementation will contain those instructions. Whether they get them from including a particular header, or by having their own versions of those instructions, it all looks the same in the binary. It would be hard work to claim the presence of those instructions constitutes a derived work, any more than you could claim the instructions which set the stack or registers up for a function call constitute a derived work.

J