In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writ
es:
>One could argue that adding a driver is a derived work. You are
>modifying tables in the kernel with references to your device, and the
>rest comes in under the contamination theory. Until the matter has
>been properly adjudicated, you cannot say with certainty that your
>interpretation is correct.
To give an example from another field, TSR Hobbies used to claim that
any character or setting designed for use with their D&D game was legally
*theirs*, by a clever abuse of the way unauthorized "derived works" are
handled. The current owners still claim this to be the case, although
they mostly fall back on "only a court could decide that". They're right;
only a court can decide, if someone decides to sue you.
Never make the mistake of assuming that mere stupidity will prevent an opinion
from winning in court. And *never* assume that, just because you'd win,
you're safe from a lawsuit.
(BTW, if anyone's curious, I'm just going to make this totally clear: Any
patches I submit to any *BSD system are intended to be, in and of themselves,
in the public domain. If someone wishes to add them to a work with a given
license, I have no complaints. I know that by default they're covered by
copyright, no matter how trivial they are, but I can override that.)
-s
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
