Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751764AbWCIWVd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:21:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751924AbWCIWVd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:21:33 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:40712 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751764AbWCIWVd (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 17:21:33 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Phillip Susi" , Cc: "Luke-Jr" , "Anshuman Gholap" , Subject: RE: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers. Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:21:00 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <161717d50603090933o3df190f9vb1e06b0ec37deb8e@mail.gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:17:20 -0800 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:17:21 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1599 Lines: 35 > There are no dearth of legal opinions on this matter which differ > quite radically from your interpretation here, quite a few from > lawyers. As far as I am concerned (and the GPL too, if my > interpretation of it is correct), any code is a derived work of my > code if either a) it directly makes use of symbols in my code or b) it > cannot execute unless my code executes, such that its distribution > without my code would be useless. You are claiming that you have copyright over *any* code that *does* X. This is the one specific thing that copyright can *never* give you. You can only hold copyright over something if there are a large number of ways to do the *same* *thing*, and you creatively picked one of them. Yes, they can use some code other than your code, just as Static Controls could have used some printers other than Lexmark's printers. See Lexmark v. Static Controls. But you cannot say you own every way to make X do Y. If there is only one practically possible way to do X, then nobody can hold copyright on it, even if there are many ways to do Y, and Y is similar to X. It must be the same. That's the law, and it makes a lot of sense. If you want to own *any* way to make X do Y with Z, then you need a software patent. Copyrights only cover your choice of one of the many possible ways to make X do Y with Z. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/