Cisco Cisco IPICS Release 2.1 Licensing Information

 

And note that I'm very much talking about just the _binary_. Your source

code is still very much yours, and you have the right to distribute it

separately any which way you want. You wrote it, you own the copyrights to

it, and it is an independent work.

 

But when you distribute it in a way that is CLEARLY tied to the GPL'd

kernel (and a binary module is just one such clear tie - a "patch" to

build it or otherwise tie it to the kernel is also such a tie, even if you

distribute it as source under some other license), you're BY DEFINITION

not an independent work any more.

 

(But exactly because I'm not a black-and-white person, I reserve the right

to make a balanced decision on any particular case. I have several times

felt that the module author had a perfectly valid argument for why the

"default assumption" of being derived wasn't the case. That's why things

like the AFS module were accepted - but not liked - in the first place).

 

This is why SCO's arguments are specious. IBM wrote their code, retained

their copyrights to their code AND THEY SEVERED THE CONNECTION TO SCO'S

CODE (and, arguably the connections didn't even exist in the first place,

since apparently things like JFS were written for OS/2 as well, and the

Linux port was based on that one - but that's a separate argument and

independent of my point).

 

See the definition of "derivative" in USC 17.1.101:

 

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting

works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,

fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art

reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which

a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting

of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other

modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of

authorship, is a "derivative work".

 

And a binary module is an "elaboration" on the kernel. Sorry, but that is

how it IS.

 

In short: your code is yours. The code you write is automatically

copyrighted by YOU, and as such you have the right to license and use it

any way you want (well, modulo _other_ laws, of course - in the US your

license can't be racist, for example, but that has nothing to do with

copyright laws, and would fall under a totally different legal framework).

 

But when you use that code to create an "elaboration" to the kernel, that

makes it a derived work, and you cannot distribute it except as laid out

by the GPL. A binary module is one such case, but even just a source patch