cvs commit: src/lib/libdwarf Makefile _libdwarf.h dwarf.h dwarf_abbrev.c dwarf_attr.c dwarf_attrval.c dwarf_cu.c dwarf_dealloc.c dwarf_die.c dwarf_dump.c dwarf_errmsg.c dwarf_errno.c dwarf_finish.c dwarf_form.c dwarf_init.c dwarf_loc.c ...

[Bruce M. Simpson]

Peter Wemm wrote:
> The next point is that the Linux folks (including Linus) seem to
> consider that making calls to the linux kernel causes your driver to
> be a derivative, unless the API you're calling has been blessed as a
> public interface.  (To be fair, I can see the point for their specific
> circumstances, but their interpretation of copyright seems to be quite
> a stretch to me).
>   

I wonder if the "netlink" API constitutes such a set of calls to the 
Linux kernel. I raise this matter because we've just grown multiple 
route table support, and it looks like we could use an API for that. If 
we can gain compatibility with other systems, that widens our appeal.

Given that its developers had an informational RFC published, under the 
auspices of "an interface to IP service modules", I think that somewhat 
weakens the case that implementing an API constitutes a "derivative work".

Such an interpretation of copyright seems equivocal, when one considers 
that the same group criticise Microsoft for not opening their APIs: "We 
want everyone to be able to play together, but only by our new set of 
rules".

To which one can respond: surely curses came before ncurses? And surely 
routing sockets came before netlink? Etc ad nauseam.