> I also have another concern from a legal standpoint I'd rather not review the ioctl part of this. I'd probably request other DRI developers abstain as well.
> This is a Windows kernel API being smashed into a Linux driver. I don't want to be tainted by knowledge of an API that I've no idea of the legal status of derived works. (it this all covered patent wise under OIN?)
> I don't want to ever be accused of designing a Linux kernel API with illgotten D3DKMT knowledge, I feel tainting myself with knowledge of a proprietary API might cause derived work issues.
This is the real scary part about software patents, and more specifically, patenting APIs. I'm not saying Microsoft is doing this in this case, but it could be a very real strategy by a bad actor. Attempt to taint open source software with your patented software and then litigate.
In a dystopian future where patented software API lawsuits have become a common occurrence, I could imagine "clean room people". Individuals who can be guaranteed to not have been exposed to certain software designs.
With looking at source, you have to distinguish between copyright (the license) and possible patent status. You should indeed be careful when looking at code with an unclear license, as this opens you up to claims of copyright violations.
However with patents, the situation is different (which makes them so problematic). Patent violation is solely based on whether your code violates a patent or not. Having looked at other sources or not doesn't change anything about the possible violation. This is, what makes patents so nasty.
On the other hand, if Microsoft themselves are publishing this code as open source, on the open, on one of the most important projects out there, and are actively asking other experts from other companies to review it, I would imagine they are weakening their arguments on the potential litigation.
Only for copyright claims. Patent claims are not diminished by publishing items and asking for review. We can see this in the various video codec and other standards that publish a bunch of info that is covered extensively by patents.
> I also have another concern from a legal standpoint I'd rather not review the ioctl part of this. I'd probably request other DRI developers abstain as well.
> This is a Windows kernel API being smashed into a Linux driver. I don't want to be tainted by knowledge of an API that I've no idea of the legal status of derived works. (it this all covered patent wise under OIN?)
> I don't want to ever be accused of designing a Linux kernel API with illgotten D3DKMT knowledge, I feel tainting myself with knowledge of a proprietary API might cause derived work issues.
This is the real scary part about software patents, and more specifically, patenting APIs. I'm not saying Microsoft is doing this in this case, but it could be a very real strategy by a bad actor. Attempt to taint open source software with your patented software and then litigate.
In a dystopian future where patented software API lawsuits have become a common occurrence, I could imagine "clean room people". Individuals who can be guaranteed to not have been exposed to certain software designs.