The video for linux (v4l) interface description (videodev.h) is imported from linux. The header does not have a license. The author allows the use of the header, and there is believe that a copy of such an interface description can not lead to a copyright infringement. The X.org distribution comes with a copy of videodev.h too. Corresponding discussion between julian@ and the authors of v4l and v4l2 below: ---snip--- Alan Cox said: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:13:15PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >How does the licensing of the include files stand? > > Basically you cannot copyright an interface - its a fact rather > than creative expression normally. > > >Of course there's always the "type it all in again" approach > >where we define a functionally equivalent but completely > >differntly spelled API, > > Wouldn't even need to be differently spelled. > > I'm all for this kind of sharing. > > Alan ======================================= also: =========== From: Alan Cox Precedence: junk Subject: Re: Implementing V4L(2) on BSD Cc: Alan Cox , video4linux-list@redhat.com Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:57:02 -0400 To: Julian Elischer References: <425F025E.4010001@vicor.com> In-Reply-To: <425F025E.4010001@vicor.com> Reply-To: Linux and Kernel Video Message-ID: <20050415075702.GA30470@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Message: 31 On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 04:53:02PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > Anyhow both Alan Cox (who had a big hand in the V4L interface) (see above) > and > Bill Dirks (V4L2) have indicated to me now that they approve Xorg btw has a BSD licensed (well X licensed so same thing) copy of the videodev header I believe. We certainly sorted that out for them permission wise too Alan ============ AND: Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: V4L2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Re: V4L2" Return-Path: X-Original-To: julian@vicor.com Delivered-To: julian@vicor.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postoffice.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662264CE87D for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postoffice.vicor-nb.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (postoffice.vicor-nb.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 91927-08 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ylpvm01.prodigy.net (ylpvm01-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.32]) by postoffice.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5844CE835 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:02:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (adsl-63-198-58-131.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.19 8.58.131]) by ylpvm01.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j3D42f4H 014884 for ; Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:02:41 -0400 Message-ID: <425C99F4.70507@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:03:00 -0700 From: Bill Dirks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/200406 16 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: V4L2 References: <4254403F.7080300@vicor.com> <42588158.8040406@pacbell.net> <425C170 2.1060104@vicor.com> In-Reply-To: <425C1702.1060104@vicor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.test.vicor-nb.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on postoffice.vicor-nb.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,PORN_4 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 523 Found this with Google http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/publications/IP/IP_Articles/Baystate_Holding.pdf I don't think you could be charged with copyright infringement. Especially since the V4L2 spec is publicly available. Go ahead and copy the file. As the original author, I have no objection. Looking at a current version of the file, it has no copyright notice anyhow. http://lxr.linux.no/source/include/linux/videodev2.h Bill. Julian Elischer wrote: > This is a question specifically for you however. > > I am considerring implementing the V4L2 interface for BSD. > Obviously it would be a compatible reimplementation (as the kernel > is very different). It would however give correct credit to the > original API design. > > The trouble comes in maintaining the compatibility without breaking > copyright. (BSD obviously uses the BSD copyright and inclusion of a GPL > component raises all sorts of problems (at least, in the kernel). > > Compatibility can best be maintained by using the same include file > for defininitions. > The alternative of "typing it all in in a different order" is stupid > because > 1/ It's not really "not copying it" > 2/ it is hard to pick up fixes. > > Unfortunatly, to be compatible however, all those values would need to > be defined.. > > What is the situation with the copyright of the include file? > > > Bill Dirks wrote: > >> Others have taken over since I haven't had time for this in a while. >> It's included in 2.6. See http://linux.bytesex.org/ for the latest >> stuff including 2.4 patches. >> >> Bill. >> >> >> Julian Elischer wrote: >> >>> not being a Linux type.. (BSD's my game) >>> is V4L2 in new linux systems by default or did it deadend? >>> I notice the web page talks mostly abut 2.4 kernels and doesn't have >>> much new info. >>> >>> regards, >>> >>> Julian >>> >> > ---snip---