Re: Vicam driver appears to contain misappropriated code
<posted & mailed>
Michael Poole wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>
>> In the Linux kernel,
>> drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c
>>
>> contains *long* sequences which appear to have been lifted from some
>> other driver without permission or attribution, probably by
>> wire-sniffing.
>>
>> Not short sequences, really long ones.
>>
>> This is not just nondistributable, it's actually likely to be sued over:
>> the company clearly didn't authorize this use.
>
> Do you have any evidence to indicate that these byte streams contain
> any copyrightable or otherwise protected content?
They look creative to me. I certainly couldn't write them independently, on
my own. Under modern copyright law, everything is copyrighted by default,
unless it falls in one of the standard uncopyrightable categories. It's not
a "fact" and it's not an "idea".
If you show me evidence that it's a multiplication table, I'll retract that
statement. It appears to be executable code based on the way it's loaded
into the camera. Given the date of the camera's creation, it's not
pre-1988, so it's not public domain by lack of notice.
> (It might be what
> the U.S. Copyright Act calls a "useful article".)
That category doesn't provide any relevant exceptions to the exclusive
distribution right. (It does restrict action to 1977 law. Perhaps you know
something about 1977 law.) In any case, the same exceptions do not apply
worldwide.
> Why do you say it
> is non-distributable in the first place?
Copyrighted material without license from the copyright holder is
non-distributable unless it is fair use/fair dealing.
> Michael Poole
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Reply to: