Tim Kelly <hockey@dialectronics.com> writes:

> "Derived" is derived.  If you look at code that explains how to set
> bits to enable certain settings, any code you write that applies what
> you have learned is "derived" from the code you looked at.  The line of
> code that you write to enable those bits is derived from the code you
> looked at.  You can argue to the contrary, but unless you have the legal
> means to defend yourself in court, you lose.  Unless you have the legal
> means to defend NetBSD in court, you are playing with other people's
> money by giving the response you have.

This is simply wrong. To make a somewhat extreme example, many drivers
in NetBSD were written or enhanced by looking at how Linux drivers for
the same hardware worked (and even say so in the CVS logs). If your
theory of derived works applies, then the entire NetBSD kernel is now
a derived work of GPL-licensed code and as such is subject to the
GPL. Do you believe this to be the case?

> There may be no contamination from looking at BSD licensed code, but
> APSL is not BSD.  Besides, if you like Darwin code that much, why not
> run the operating system that is based on it?

I don't at all see what you're getting at here. Their code does
something that ours doesn't, involving a weird bit of hardware (the
locking-down caps lock on ADB keyboards) that is specific to the same
company that wrote the code. It seems entirely natural to see how they
handle this situation when considering how to handle it in our code.

        - Nathan