GPL RTG driver information available

[Linde]

In fact, if you check the file, it says "(c) Brian King" in the header, and it does not have the usual GPL clause on top. So it's really questionable in which state this file is, and whether you are allowed to derive any third party work from it.

... and if you check the software it's included in and partially builds on (UAE and WinUAE) they are GPL licensed. You don't have to include license information in the source file for it to be enforceable, nor is GPL and copyright mutually exclusive. In fact, GPL builds on the foundations of copyright to be enforceable, and in most of the world it's impossible to even disown a work in terms copyright by other means than transferring the rights.

I agree with you that this project may belong in some sort of legal grey area, but that a file that was contributed to a GPL project has a copyright notice is not grounds for suspicion that it wasn't the intention of the contributor to release it under GPL terms. The license of the work is in the README file of the UAE repo.

Whether he was allowed to release it under those conditions in first place is a different question, of course, but at this point all the indications that the development of the Picasso 96 UAE code are in breach of some other contract are rumors and hearsay. It must be easier to get in touch with the proprietor of the official development kit and Brian King to resolve this, right?

Also, Hieroglyph,

If your code is indeed based on the GPL licensed (Win/)UAE source code, you can't simply re-license it under LGPL without express permission from its contributor(s). I don't know what you think is particularly impractical about the GPL for Amiga, anyway. All you need to do is make sure that the source of any application based on it is available to anyone with a copy of the software.

[Linde]

Bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!. You can't protect an API. What kind of intellectual property right should that be? Copyright, patent, utility model, trademark? None apply. Don't start your stuff about morals again.

Writing picasso drivers without license and DDK is perfectly legal and another thousand comments of yours stating the opposite won't change the facts.

In some jurisdictions, the organization of a set of information may actually be copyright protected. It depends on the complexity of organization and how much of a work the organization really constitutes. My understanding is that this is the basis of the much-spoken-of Oracle vs. Google case, where Google has used publicly available API information to implement their own compatible API.

Of course, the Java API is a much more intricate organization and structuring than the P96 API is. In the end, all these things are "grey areas" which is why it's taken so long for Oracle vs. Google to be resolved.

There is also the possible issue of a breach of contract, which is why "clean room" engineering is a popular way of going about the reimplementation of an API or protocol. Though, corporations with many lawyers will probably put a clause even in end-user licenses prohibiting the use of the software for reverse engineering. This may be an issue where EULAs are applicable.

Even then, if it is concluded that there is an infringement, such infringement may be covered by "fair use" -- copyright infringement and breach of contract is OK given some circumstances, often for security research and for the sake of producing interoperable non-competing software.

[Linde]

The "system libraries" provision in GPL is not symmetrical. You can have a GPL application use non-GPL-compatible system library, but you cannot have a GPL plugin into a non-GPL-compatible system library (driver is essentially a plugin).

That is not completely true. You may not distribute GPL-compatible binaries as part of non GPL-distribution of software (as a plugin or linked otherwise). For example, you may not include the driver in a closed source OS distribution. You can however share just the driver, and whatever users do with it that doesn't involve redistributing it (or distributing derivative works) is perfectly fine. That is, there is nothing in the license that stops me from downloading GPL software and doing whatever I want with it on my system, as long as I am not redistributing it in a way that isn't compliant with the license.

This is how you can for example legally download GPL software, modify it to your heart's content and never share any of it. It's only when I distribute the software that the license may become an issue.