So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile
against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one
proprietary object file.
During my linux installation I was able to preload the module and
have it detect the drives fine as a scsi device, so I was able to
install the base system onto them.
The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel
so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the
module into the scsi library by editing the Makefile doesn't seem to do
it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this
kernel on it.
Also, is it possible for Lilo to even boot this without a RAM disk
somewhere? I guess Lilo has to know about the drive, but it can't know
without the module...so am I screwed into using floppies with a
RAM disk image anyways?
Thanks,
--James Lamanna
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
> So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
> up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
> Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile
> against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one
> proprietary object file.
> During my linux installation I was able to preload the module and
> have it detect the drives fine as a scsi device, so I was able to
> install the base system onto them.
>
> The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel
> so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the
> module into the scsi library by editing the Makefile doesn't seem to do
> it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this
> kernel on it.
>
> Also, is it possible for Lilo to even boot this without a RAM disk
> somewhere? I guess Lilo has to know about the drive, but it can't know
> without the module...so am I screwed into using floppies with a
> RAM disk image anyways?
>
> Thanks,
> --James Lamanna
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
[email protected] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>NO!
>Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
>Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
[...]
>> The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel
>> so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the
>> module into the scsi library by editing the Makefile doesn't seem to do
>> it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this
>> kernel on it.
[...]
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
give it away.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> give it away.
And you will never boot it because the resources conflict with out the
module, go try it. I promise you that it will never boot if you build it
in the kernel. Also the terms of acceptance of the module also means you
can not built it inter the kernel.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
Oh remember, I DEFINED the terms that the module could be created!
Go and examine the wrapper and it is portions of the pdc202xx.c code that
is mine. With that in mind, in order to use that GPL code, the
restrictions and terms imposed were module exclusive.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> give it away.
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL,
then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any
restrictions on your redistribution of these sources. Only thing that
you must obey is again the GPL.
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal
stuff.
You can't force me to give you a copy of my blafoo driver until I
chose to either release it to the public in which case I must put it
under GPL as it contains GPLed code or distribute a binary version to
a customer, which then in turn has the right to request the source
from me and (after he got it, because I am bound by GPL to give it to
him), distribute it freely as this right is granted to him by GPL.
I am even allowed to erase my sources without making them ever public.
Please read the GPL:
--- cut ---
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
--- cut ---
I don't distribute the software. I just run it.
--- cut ---
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
--- cut ---
I chose not to copy and distribute these modified programs which is
perfectly covered by my license which I got when obtaining the
sources.
Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds
every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking
kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me
because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Regards
Henning
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:53:59AM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> > can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> > give it away.
>
> You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
> to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
>
> Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
> Software Engineer
> Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
> You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link,
that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about
the intent.
Alan
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
>
> No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
> that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link,
> that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about
> the intent.
Of the list of poeple here, only Alan was present with the discussion of
the terms of how the FASTTRAK SCSI-Emulation API to ATA was defined.
Since you are not in the position to define the terms of how the
interaction between the two subsystems work, you have no clue that
building it into the kernel will fail!
Second read the causes about "COMMERIAL INTENT", somewhere around section
7 paragraph 3.
I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that
incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are
module only!
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
> Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds
> every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking
> kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me
> because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Ask me for the GPL code that I wrote as the author, that am working on at
the rates define. I will tell you to go right to hell on a bobsled!
Oh and I will push to make sure you do not waste time getting there.
You are being a total ASS.
As the author of GPL code I have the right to pull the GPL if I wish and
never update or publish the updates, and YOU have not legal authority to
force me to send you SHIT! Does that make it real clear or not?
Later,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
> >
> > No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> > change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
> > that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link,
> > that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about
> > the intent.
>
> Of the list of poeple here, only Alan was present with the discussion of
> the terms of how the FASTTRAK SCSI-Emulation API to ATA was defined.
> Since you are not in the position to define the terms of how the
> interaction between the two subsystems work, you have no clue that
> building it into the kernel will fail!
>
> Second read the causes about "COMMERIAL INTENT", somewhere around section
> 7 paragraph 3.
Section 7 paragraph 3 relates to patent infringement. The GNU WWW site is
extremely clear on this issue:
"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately
in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist."
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). No restrictions are imposed in
the GPL; none are intended, according to the FSF.
[jas88@dax linux-2.4.0-test11.vanilla]$ grep -i --context=3 commercial COPYING
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
That's the only occurrence of the word "commercial" in the GPL.
> I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that
> incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are
> module only!
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
James.
> > I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that
> > incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are
> > module only!
>
> Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
> other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
Can I suggest you get a basic US copyright law text out of the local library
and read it before continuing this. You might also want to read up on the
background. Andre took some of his own code and granted them a conditional
seperate license to use some of it in certain ways.
Your comments about the GPL are also incorrect. I can grant additional rights
without something ceasing to GPL providing those rights do not cause a conflict
with the rules the GPL cites notably the 'no additional restrictions'
statement.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
> other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
And the code for FASTTRAK is not GPL, James we did this once before.
If Promise were to promote and tell people to link the object to the
kernel every again, I will begin a law suit. Because the harm and damage
caused to the ATA subsystem is not repairable. The damages are not
limited.
Now I worked with Promise to get this all clean as a module that could be
updated as there kernel evolves. If all of you go and SCREW up the work I
did to try an allow a company that is not generally friendly to Linux as
far as IP and technology issues are related, then I will stop trying to
get them to expose the IP for the RAID signatures to export to the Linux
SOFT RAID.
THIS WILL ROYALLY SCREW EVERYBODY! HAHAHAHA.
Now do not go dorking things that I am trying to make make public.
This is really pissing me off!
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:11:45PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
...
> You are being a total ASS.
...
Did you look in the mirror recently? I am sick and tired of your
abusive language on linux-kernel. You may be a big kernel-honcho
and have contributed more code than 99% of the people on the list,
but that does not give you the right to abuse anyone you choose just
because he has an opinion you do not share.
IMHO you should grow up and obtain a decent set of manners as soon as
possible.
Dominik Kubla
PS. Your comments make me wonder if you actually read the whole mail you
were referring to.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No.
>
> If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
> and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
>
> Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL,
> then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any
> restrictions on your redistribution of these sources. Only thing that
> you must obey is again the GPL.
>
> I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
> base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
> glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal
> stuff.
Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder
can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a
State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms
of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you
are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own
benefit with it, GPL or no.
That being said, the party seeking the order would be required to show
irreparable harm, which in this case, could be shown (you stated you
intend to act in bad faith and breach the terms of the license). I do
not believe a Copyright holder, as I understand the GPL, would be able
to stop you from redistributing your changes and/or selling them. The
GPL would grant you this right. However, the copyright holder
could obtain an order forcing your compliance to the license in the
US (and even in some foreign countries, but not all), and could
also simply sue you for "conversion", then issue a Subpeona Dues Tecum, and
obtain the code via discovery uver F.R.C.P./U.C.C.P., and you would
be ordered to produce it, or face criminal contempt charges.
If there's a finding of bad faith (i.e. you knew you were violating
the license and did it anyway), the judge could also hit you for
punitive damages.
Actually you are part right and part wrong. If the terms of the license
require to return "derivative works" (which I believe the GPL does), you
have an obligation to provide these changes upon request. It's also
just plain old good manners.
:-)
Jeff
>
> You can't force me to give you a copy of my blafoo driver until I
> chose to either release it to the public in which case I must put it
> under GPL as it contains GPLed code or distribute a binary version to
> a customer, which then in turn has the right to request the source
> from me and (after he got it, because I am bound by GPL to give it to
> him), distribute it freely as this right is granted to him by GPL.
You have balls a big as mine.
>
> I am even allowed to erase my sources without making them ever public.
>
> Please read the GPL:
>
> --- cut ---
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
modification >>> you're nailed.
:-)
Jeff
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
> --- cut ---
>
> I don't distribute the software. I just run it.
>
> --- cut ---
> 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
> of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
> distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
> above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
> --- cut ---
>
> I chose not to copy and distribute these modified programs which is
> perfectly covered by my license which I got when obtaining the
> sources.
>
> Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds
> every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking
> kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me
> because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
>
> Regards
> Henning
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 11:53:59AM -0800, Dr. Kelsey Hudson wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >
> > > No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> > > can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> > > give it away.
> >
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
> > to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
> >
> > Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
> > Software Engineer
> > Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
> INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
>
> Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
> D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
> > base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
> > glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal
> > stuff.
>
> Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder
> can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a
> State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms
> of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you
> are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own
> benefit with it, GPL or no.
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some
code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the
only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for
you to make your code available to anybody.
Only once you distribute the software to others do you have to make the
code available, and even then you only have to make it available to
those who have the binaries. Of course, they can then turn around and
do whatever they feel like with it, but thats a different issue.
--
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > > I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
> > > base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
> > > glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal
> > > stuff.
> >
> > Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder
> > can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a
> > State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms
> > of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you
> > are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own
> > benefit with it, GPL or no.
>
> I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
> people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
> have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some
> code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the
> only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for
> you to make your code available to anybody.
Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a
for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require
that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and
I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
:-)
Jeff
>
> Only once you distribute the software to others do you have to make the
> code available, and even then you only have to make it available to
> those who have the binaries. Of course, they can then turn around and
> do whatever they feel like with it, but thats a different issue.
>
>
> --
> Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
> Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
> 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
> Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected]
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
> > people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
> > have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some
> > code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the
> > only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for
> > you to make your code available to anybody.
>
> Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a
> for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require
> that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and
> I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
>
> :-)
Well of course this is the case. I specifically said that I am the only
one that ever ran the binaries. Once you start distributing it to other
people, then they can request the source additions/modifications and you
are obligated to provide it.
Theoretically you could use software based on GPL'd code all throughout
a for-profit corporation and make boatloads of money using that
software. As long as you don't distribute it to customers outside the
company, and as long as none of the employees using it ask for the
source and distribute it outside the company, nobody outside that
corporation has any right to the source even though it is being used for
profit.
--
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected]
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 01:09:37PM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
>
> > > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
> > > people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
> > > have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some
> > > code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the
> > > only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for
> > > you to make your code available to anybody.
> >
> > Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a
> > for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require
> > that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and
> > I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
> >
> > :-)
>
> Well of course this is the case. I specifically said that I am the only
> one that ever ran the binaries. Once you start distributing it to other
> people, then they can request the source additions/modifications and you
> are obligated to provide it.
>
> Theoretically you could use software based on GPL'd code all throughout
> a for-profit corporation and make boatloads of money using that
> software. As long as you don't distribute it to customers outside the
> company, and as long as none of the employees using it ask for the
> source and distribute it outside the company, nobody outside that
> corporation has any right to the source even though it is being used for
> profit.
I'm not certain this is technically correct, but I think it would be worth
having some folks here investigate this secnario.
Jeff
>
> --
> Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
> Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
> 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
> Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected]
[Christopher Friesen]
> I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
> to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
> only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and
for that you do *not* have a "only if they ask for it" clause.
Or so it seems to some people, like RMS. See this week's DWN: there is
a nice long discussion in debian-devel about this. Apparently RMS
demands that all GPL'd Debian binary packages include a copy -- it is
not enough that the Debian base system already has a copy and that all
GPL'd source tarballs include a copy.
I do not agree with this interpretation, because it would mean that any
GPL'd file that can possibly be independently downloaded (such as a .c
file from a CVS server) must include that same 17k document.
...But just so everyone knows: according to RMS, every file on your FTP
server that you provide under the GPL v2 must include a copy of the
GPL. (Easy enough to do with tar files, harder for other formats, and
never mind the wasted bandwidth.) Having the GPL in a separate file on
your site does not count, apparently.
Peter
Hi!
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
>
> No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
> that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link,
> that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about
> the intent.
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
driver. Is that okay or not?
Pavel
--
I'm [email protected]. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [email protected]
> This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
> modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
> and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
> driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
> This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
> modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
> and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
> driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are
originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code
to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given
me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the
(completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide
whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
The legal issues are also incredibly murky, since the customers create
the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use
intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad;
although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a
while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before
you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft
could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with
the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very
slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which
calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program
which makes a system() call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC
call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK
if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program
if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they
share the same VM?
In any case, the FSF has their opinion, and at least one Ivy League law
professor laughed aloud when he was asked what he thought about the
FSF's legal theories; other people have their own. Most importantly,
none of this has been tested in court. So it's probably not worth
trying to settle this on the linux-kernel list.
As far as this particular case is concerned, at least Lucent is shipping
part of the driver in source. Some of the other winmodem drivers are
shipping a pure binary module, which means it will only work against a
single kernel version, which locks out users form upgrading to newer
kernels if they still want to use their winmodem. So at least Lucent is
trying to be at least somewhat good guys about this.
I could threaten to sue them, but it's not clear to me what good it will
do, short of depriving some users from being able to use their
winmodem. I suppose we could encourage them to rewrite the
modified-serial.c for scratch, but aside from making some GPL fanatics
feel good, enriching some consultant and making Lucent a little poorer,
what good does it really do in the long run? And I have better things
to do with my time. At the same time, I certainly won't bless what they
are doing. What they are doing is clearly wrong, and illegal. But it
is an imperfect world that we live in, as the events in Florida have
been clearly demonstrating over the past month.
Given the limited time that I have, I'd much rather spend it going after
the Rockwell/Connexant winmodem driver, which also pretty clearly uses
serial.c, but for which they've only distributed a single .o file for a
specific kernel version. Or I could spend it on programming.....
- Ted
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
>
> Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
> the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are
> originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code
> to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given
> me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the
> (completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide
> whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
>
> The legal issues are also incredibly murky,
that's "Merkey"
> since the customers create
> the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use
> intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad;
> although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a
> while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before
> you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft
> could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with
> the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very
> slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which
> calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program
> which makes a system() call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC
> call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK
> if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program
> if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they
> share the same VM?
Under the "Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure" even looking at GPL code
and using techniques it contains would contaminate anything someone
works on. This doctrine put forward two concepts that have been
used in trade secret cases to justify injunctions and non-competes
in areas of IP pollution -- negative knowledge and inevitable
misappropriation.
The argument goes something like this. Negative knowledge is defined as
knowing what techniques do not work (as opposed to what techniques
do work). In the course of development of a piece of software,
there are many "blind alleys" and "false starts" that are encountered
as an individual uses trial and error to perfect whatever piece
of software he is writing. Over time, the person learns what
approaches are blind alleys and which work. This knowledge becomes
imprinted into the actual thinking processes of this person.
Source code can also contain notes and comments about what does not
work, and what does work. Someone reading this source code would
then incorporate these ideas and knowledge into their thinking
processes. Companies spend lots of money paying engineers to
develop software, and this "negative knowledge", under the
doctrine of inevitable disclosure is legally the property
of an employer since they paid an engineer to experiment and
learn it. This is how companies are able to get non-compete
court orders against employees in trade secret lawsuits -- they
argue that noone is going to go down a development path using ideas
or approaches they know do not work. This argument goes on
to state that if two engineers, one who had access to a piece of
code vs. one who did not were to start at the same time working
on the same problem, the person who had access to the code would
finish first because he would "inevitably use" the knowledge gained
from access to the source code.
Let's say for example two engineers wanted to write a new Linux-like
replacement. One of them had access to ftp.kernel.org and the other
did not. Which one of the engineers would finish first? Obviously
the one with access to ftp.kernel.org would finish first and
would not have had to use trial and error to get all the IOCTL calls
working, etc. The engineer without source code access would take
longer, perhaps by a factor of years, to complete the same project.
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that
conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative
work".
There are a lot of big software companies who believe this and
fear application of the doctrine of inevitable disclosure relative
to GPL code. Novell and Microsoft both do not even allow employees
to bring GPL code into the building -- period -- for fear that someone
will attempt to file a claim that they have "converted" GPL code
and created derivative works that may have contaminated non-GPL
code projects. Novell has an official standing policy barring employees
from using GPL code. That's why all the Linux work for NetWare is
done in the India development center, and not the US, out of fear
of IP pollution in the Provo facility. When I officed at the Microsoft
campus in 1999, they had similiar policies, and were even more strict
than Novell.
Now, in reality, these folks have employees in both companies who
download stuff at home, and putz around with it, GPL code included,
but that's a lot different from these companies having official policies
allowing projects to use GPL code in their normal course of business.
In short, under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, a GPL copyright
holder could succeed with a claim of conversion from someone simply
looking at a piece of GPL code, then using whatever it contained
to build either interface modules or a module with similiar functionality.
It would be a hard call for a sitting judge to make, but I have seen
actual cases where a judge does just that with the help of a special
master.
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things
in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual
slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert
simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it
used this way. Novell has blocked all internal access to the NWFS
ftp server TRG, BTW, because they are afraid I would attempt to
apply the doctrine to force them to open source NetWare projects if
they download NWFS and used it internally with eDirectory. They've
told us so.
This may help you understand just how complicated this whole IP stuff
is relative to derived works. It's undefined under current case law
and precednt relative to the GPL, but these big companies are taking
no chances....
:-)
Jeff
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:21:26PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
> > From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
> >
> > Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
> > the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are
> > originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code
> > to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given
> > me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the
> > (completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide
> > whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
> >
> > The legal issues are also incredibly murky,
>
> that's "Merkey"
>
> > since the customers create
> > the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use
> > intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad;
> > although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a
> > while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before
> > you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft
> > could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with
> > the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very
> > slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which
> > calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program
> > which makes a system() call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC
> > call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK
> > if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program
> > if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they
> > share the same VM?
BTW, for those legal folks who also demand I post case law citations, please
see the Pesico vs. (I forget the guys name) case. Just get on Westlaw,
and look up "Pepsico". This is the case where this doctrine was created
and applied by a state judge. The case was upheld, and has been used all
over the US since then to shaft departing employees from big software/hardware
companies.
Jeff
>
> Under the "Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure" even looking at GPL code
> and using techniques it contains would contaminate anything someone
> works on. This doctrine put forward two concepts that have been
> used in trade secret cases to justify injunctions and non-competes
> in areas of IP pollution -- negative knowledge and inevitable
> misappropriation.
>
> The argument goes something like this. Negative knowledge is defined as
> knowing what techniques do not work (as opposed to what techniques
> do work). In the course of development of a piece of software,
> there are many "blind alleys" and "false starts" that are encountered
> as an individual uses trial and error to perfect whatever piece
> of software he is writing. Over time, the person learns what
> approaches are blind alleys and which work. This knowledge becomes
> imprinted into the actual thinking processes of this person.
>
> Source code can also contain notes and comments about what does not
> work, and what does work. Someone reading this source code would
> then incorporate these ideas and knowledge into their thinking
> processes. Companies spend lots of money paying engineers to
> develop software, and this "negative knowledge", under the
> doctrine of inevitable disclosure is legally the property
> of an employer since they paid an engineer to experiment and
> learn it. This is how companies are able to get non-compete
> court orders against employees in trade secret lawsuits -- they
> argue that noone is going to go down a development path using ideas
> or approaches they know do not work. This argument goes on
> to state that if two engineers, one who had access to a piece of
> code vs. one who did not were to start at the same time working
> on the same problem, the person who had access to the code would
> finish first because he would "inevitably use" the knowledge gained
> from access to the source code.
>
> Let's say for example two engineers wanted to write a new Linux-like
> replacement. One of them had access to ftp.kernel.org and the other
> did not. Which one of the engineers would finish first? Obviously
> the one with access to ftp.kernel.org would finish first and
> would not have had to use trial and error to get all the IOCTL calls
> working, etc. The engineer without source code access would take
> longer, perhaps by a factor of years, to complete the same project.
>
> Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
> code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
> his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
> what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that
> conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative
> work".
>
> There are a lot of big software companies who believe this and
> fear application of the doctrine of inevitable disclosure relative
> to GPL code. Novell and Microsoft both do not even allow employees
> to bring GPL code into the building -- period -- for fear that someone
> will attempt to file a claim that they have "converted" GPL code
> and created derivative works that may have contaminated non-GPL
> code projects. Novell has an official standing policy barring employees
> from using GPL code. That's why all the Linux work for NetWare is
> done in the India development center, and not the US, out of fear
> of IP pollution in the Provo facility. When I officed at the Microsoft
> campus in 1999, they had similiar policies, and were even more strict
> than Novell.
>
> Now, in reality, these folks have employees in both companies who
> download stuff at home, and putz around with it, GPL code included,
> but that's a lot different from these companies having official policies
> allowing projects to use GPL code in their normal course of business.
>
> In short, under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, a GPL copyright
> holder could succeed with a claim of conversion from someone simply
> looking at a piece of GPL code, then using whatever it contained
> to build either interface modules or a module with similiar functionality.
> It would be a hard call for a sitting judge to make, but I have seen
> actual cases where a judge does just that with the help of a special
> master.
>
> Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things
> in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual
> slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert
> simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it
> used this way. Novell has blocked all internal access to the NWFS
> ftp server TRG, BTW, because they are afraid I would attempt to
> apply the doctrine to force them to open source NetWare projects if
> they download NWFS and used it internally with eDirectory. They've
> told us so.
>
> This may help you understand just how complicated this whole IP stuff
> is relative to derived works. It's undefined under current case law
> and precednt relative to the GPL, but these big companies are taking
> no chances....
>
> :-)
>
> Jeff
>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that
conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative
work".
That's bullshit. Copyright law very clearly states that it protects the
fixation of an idea in a medium, and that copyright explicitly does not
protect the idea itself. The concept of what is a derived work is very
clearly understood, and there have been a lot of court cases to define
this precedent. (My understanding is that in realm of music 7 notes in
sequence, if copied, is prima facie evidence that there is a derived
work. Not 5 notes, and not 8 notes, but seven notes. Gotta love those
lawyers at work. Aren't you glad they settled that?)
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things
in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual
slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert
simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it
used this way.
That's a different matter. If you use NDA and Trade secret law, then
yes, might be able to enslave programmers using such a law. However
most courts have strict limits to how far they will take non-compete
arguments, and if an NDA turned into a non-compete, past a certain point
they will say that a person has a right to earn a living.....
Fortunately most judges will apply some amount of common sense, even
despite their law school training. In any case, the GPL doesn't involve
NDA's or Trade Secrets, so saying that this doctrine could be used to
contaminate non-GPL code simply by having people look at GPL code is
bullshit.
No question, though, the first thing we should do, is kill all the
lawyers. (And this is now definitely off-topic for the linux-kernel
list.)
- Ted
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 10:42:29PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
> From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
>
> Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
> code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
> his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
> what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that
> conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative
> work".
>
> That's bullshit. Copyright law very clearly states that it protects the
> fixation of an idea in a medium, and that copyright explicitly does not
> protect the idea itself. The concept of what is a derived work is very
State Laws may be controlling if they involve contracts. It has nothing
to do with Copyright Law, but with the terms of license for someone's
code. I've seen this crap applied. I've even been on the receiving
end of it, and been enjoined from working on PUBLIC GPL CODE for
18 months because of an AGREEMENT and not copyright laws.
> clearly understood, and there have been a lot of court cases to define
Under inevitability, the neural impules in your brain can be ruled
to be a derivative work. Believe me, I am not arguing for the doctrine,
but informing you of it's existence and the broad scope it has
in IP cases.
> this precedent. (My understanding is that in realm of music 7 notes in
> sequence, if copied, is prima facie evidence that there is a derived
> work. Not 5 notes, and not 8 notes, but seven notes. Gotta love those
> lawyers at work. Aren't you glad they settled that?)
>
> Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things
> in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual
> slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert
> simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it
> used this way.
>
> That's a different matter. If you use NDA and Trade secret law, then
> yes, might be able to enslave programmers using such a law. However
> most courts have strict limits to how far they will take non-compete
> arguments, and if an NDA turned into a non-compete, past a certain point
The legal limit is 18 months in most states. This "I have a right to
make a living argument" only holds water if the other side refuses to
post a bond. If they post a large enough bond, a court WILL rule
in favor of inevitability if they make a good case for it. (The
bond required to keep me from programming for 18 months cost Novell
$10,000,000.00.)
> they will say that a person has a right to earn a living.....
> Fortunately most judges will apply some amount of common sense, even
US Judges are pontius pilate's all -- with hearts as black as the robes
they wear. They don't care about you, or your rights. Remember, almost
all judges are lawyers who are too old or to incompetent to practice law
so they get themselves an appointment. Most of them were crooked lawyers
who went into politics (which is how a lawyer gets made into a judge, BTW,
he goes into politics).
> despite their law school training. In any case, the GPL doesn't involve
> NDA's or Trade Secrets, so saying that this doctrine could be used to
It has to do with contract law, which is what the doctrine of
inevitability is all about. Trade secrets have nothing to do
with it, it's a question of knowledge gained via access to
code through some form of agreement. In employment
situations, it's a trade secret agreement, here in Linux, it's
a GPL agreement.
> contaminate non-GPL code simply by having people look at GPL code is
> bullshit.
I argued that looking at Novell Public Code under their form of GPL
would not contaminate -- a court ruled otherwise. The court ruled
that under inevitability, public code on Novell's website and
slides presented at Brianshare, even though they were public,
had the affect of contaminating our internal projects under
this doctrine. You don't want to kill all the lawyers, you want to
kill all the judges -- it was a judge that came up with this
inevitability doctrine in the first place....
:-)
Jeff
Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
Pavel Machek <[email protected]> on 12/02/2000 10:50:35 AM
To: Alan Cox <[email protected]>, "Dr. Kelsey Hudson"
<[email protected]>
cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: Fasttrak100 questions...
Hi!
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
>
> No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
> that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link,
> that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about
> the intent.
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
driver. Is that okay or not?
Pavel
--
I'm [email protected]. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [email protected]
Hi!
> Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
> version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
> havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
Search [email protected] mailing list, it was there.
Pavel
--
The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+
> Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
> version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
> havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
The serial API had to change in 2.2.15. I know it broke the lucent driver, the
fix was a neccessary security fix
Alan
Hi!
> [Christopher Friesen]
> > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
> > to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
> > only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
>
> Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and
> for that you do *not* have a "only if they ask for it" clause.
>
> Or so it seems to some people, like RMS. See this week's DWN: there is
> a nice long discussion in debian-devel about this. Apparently RMS
> demands that all GPL'd Debian binary packages include a copy -- it is
> not enough that the Debian base system already has a copy and that all
> GPL'd source tarballs include a copy.
>
> I do not agree with this interpretation, because it would mean that any
> GPL'd file that can possibly be independently downloaded (such as a .c
> file from a CVS server) must include that same 17k document.
>
> ...But just so everyone knows: according to RMS, every file on your FTP
> server that you provide under the GPL v2 must include a copy of the
> GPL. (Easy enough to do with tar files, harder for other formats, and
> never mind the wasted bandwidth.) Having the GPL in a separate file on
> your site does not count, apparently.
Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Pavel
PS: That's crazy. Including it by reference should be enough. I do not
want waste 17K on every file.
--
I'm [email protected]. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [email protected]
[Pavel Machek]
> Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Someone on debian-devel thought of this, but went one further: change
the gzip header magic so that only a "GPL-enabled" gzip can decompress
it.
I wonder how the zlib maintainers (zlib is not GPL) would feel about
having to add support for *that*. (:
> PS: That's crazy. Including it by reference should be enough. I do
> not want waste 17K on every file.
It's not crazy, it's RMS. (: I guess he is worried about some .deb file
falling into the wrong hands and being used on a system where nobody
has heard of the GPL and there is no copy available ... then the target
user won't know his or her rights and responsibilities.
Yeah, I think it's pretty far-fetched too.
Peter
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
employment as a programmer that the employer's product is
inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade secret? Can
a previous employee get an injunction against their former
employer to cease and desist from using this negative knowledge?
If so, I might have a solution: make the Linux kernel required
reading in University programming classes!
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 10:42:29PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
> > From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
> >
> > Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
> > code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
> > his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
> > what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that
> > conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative
> > work".
> >
--
Brian F. G. Bidulock ? The reasonable man adapts himself to the ?
[email protected] ? world; the unreasonable one persists in ?
http://www.openss7.org/ ? trying to adapt the world to himself. ?
? Therefore all progress depends on the ?
? unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ?
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 01:07:30AM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
> disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
> with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
> employment as a programmer that the employer's product is
> inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade secret? Can
> a previous employee get an injunction against their former
> employer to cease and desist from using this negative knowledge?
>
> If so, I might have a solution: make the Linux kernel required
> reading in University programming classes!
Trade Secrets are defined by something called the Uniform Tade Secret
Act, which has been adopted in most states. It calls for several points
that must be met in order for something to be protected as a "trade
secret". Before this act, Muna vs. Microbiological (1964) was one of the
landmark cases outlining trade secret law in the US. A lot has happened
since Muna, but basically, these are the points.
1. A trade secret, must of course, be a "secret".
2. Cannot be readily ascertainable to someone skilled in the art.
3. Reasonable safegards must have been taken to protect it's secrecy.
4. Must have indendent economic value.
Technically, based on the premise of negative knowledge, someone could
work for company A trying to build a software product, and fail at
each attempt, thereby, accumulating negative knowledge. This person
could then quit and go to work for Company B, build the same
product, this time completing it, using previous negative
knowledge gained from Company A. If Company A, had an agreement
respecting trade secrets, under inevitability, Company A could
claim the Company B's product was based on their IP if the
employee did it within 18 months of departing Company A.
This is why I think inevitability is a ridculous doctrine. It
makes claim to the work experinece of employees as IP.
In theory, an employee could not obtain the injunction because
he would have no standing to bring a cause of action, but the copyright
holder would have standing and could if he could show that the
employee used negative knowledge and that he did so within a
certain period of time. It's even more complicated, trade
secret law makes claims that common software components
arranged in new ways would qualify as a trade secret. This could
also mean that any new software this person wrote would
necessarily be intertwined with GPL code and trade secrets of
the employer. In such a case, a Judge would "balance the
equities", and would have to make a call, like telling the company
to remove the GPL sections, and/or requireing the portions of the
code be open sourced. He could also go the other way, and rule
some sections are not covered under inevitablity.
It would be a very complex case, BTW (trade secrets cases always
are).
:-)
Jeff
>