Re: [Qemu-devel] why is kqemu closed?

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <address@hidden>
            Sebastian Kaliszewski <address@hidden> writes:
: Auke Kok wrote:
: > no matter how you turn Linus' arguments, he doesn't like anything else 
: > than ports from windows driver objects linked, and I can really agree 
: > with that. Whatever the laywers say about it is moot - only judges 
: > listen to them and Open Source doesn't listen to laywers (in generally). 
: > Plenty of vendors are already backing up Open Source too, and not just 
: > with t-shirts and penguins.
: 
: The only thing important is what GPL says. And GPL is clear here. KQemu must 
: be a derived work (i.e. include some source (even C headres) from kernel 
: and/or be bound just to a Linux kernel) to be forced to go under GPL. But 
: neither it includes any kernel headres nor it's Linux only -- the very same 
: binary (object file) can be used with *BSD as well as Windows. So KQemu can 
: be legally licenced under any licence Fabrice chooses.

The GPL talks about creating a derived work.  Including headers
doesn't necessarily create a derived work.  The header files have to
have creative content that can be protected by copyright before their
inclusion creates a derived work.  Otherwise, when I include errno.h,
I'd be creating a derived work[*].  What makes a header rise to this
level is an interesting legal issue.  Also, what makes a derived work
in an interesting legal issue that's not been robustly defined by the
courts wrt open source products (it has been defined for copy and hack
of closed source, however).  While there's no shortage of opinions on
what the legal line is, they are just that: opinions.

Having said all that, kqemu is perfectly legal, and anybody that makes
an absolute statement to the contrary is wrong.

Warner

[*] This is the example that SCO likes to trot out for Linux's
infringement.  The errno values are the same and must have been
copied.