Tim Kelly <hockey@dialectronics.com> writes:

> On 05 May 2005 19:08:18 -0400
> "Nathan J. Williams" <nathanw@wasabisystems.com> wrote:
> 
> > So if one has ever looked at GPL'd software, one must be forever
> > forbidden from working on non-GPL software?
> 
> At no point have I stated the above, nor inferred it.  I stated clearly
> that if drivers in NetBSD have been based on Linux drivers, than those
> drivers are GPL not BSD.

If using ideas from A in B always causes B to be a derivative work of
A, then nobody who has knowledge of GPL'd code can, from a paranoid
perspective, ever produce code that they can prove is not a
GPL-derivative work.

> > > In other words, you have no way of obtaining the knowledge for that
> > > hardware without looking at the Darwin code.
> > 
> > Knowledge about the hardware is simply not copyrightable. The
> > expression of that knowledge is, so I can't copy the comments out of
> > Apple's code that explain it, or the PDF that describes some other
> > part of their hardware, but having read the code or otherwise legally
> > figured it out, I may freely use it to write my own code.
> 
> It is rather disingenuous for someone as smart as you are to argue that
> code is not an expression of knowledge.  I doubt you actually stop to
> read comments in code. 

Code is an idea "fixed in a tangible medium of expression", to use the
term of art. The code is protected by copyright. The ideas expressed
by the code are not so protected. It is entirely possible to look at
code that flips some bits, learn why it's useful to flip those bits,
and carry that information elsewhere without bringing any of the code
along.

> Knowledge about hardware is categorized as "trade secrets" and is
> protected under the DMCA.  This allows Apple to release information
> about the hardware while protecting the licensing under which that
> knowledge is distributed.  The same DMCA prohibits"clean room" reverse
> engineering, although I'm not sure if this clause has been challenged in
> court yet.  Usually the threat is sufficient enough to dry up resources.

It has to be a secret to be a trade secret. Publishing the source
under a copyright license is entirely not sufficent for maintaining a
trade secret.

> You're advocating a position that you are not offering legal
> means to defend.  Ask Wasabi Systems' legal department if they
> are comfortable with your position and how you obtain information that
> you then incorporate into a product they offer in competition with Red
> Hat, and also whether they are willing to go to court with your
> position.

Been there, done that. Wasabi Systems looks at Linux (and other OSS)
code all the time.

        - Nathan