Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750777AbWCIXaX (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:30:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752008AbWCIXaW (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:30:22 -0500 Received: from xproxy.gmail.com ([66.249.82.199]:54515 "EHLO xproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750777AbWCIXaV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:30:21 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PpoyObXBQf60SC7Rbeez7qHjN0cAL2vzSmZ+8pkZ9SZ5BK41F2dpApXcC2vslmsg1KemGi/AvUb6vbPYZIdQOt459R1v71xdBgtRzG3quEQEl1+dpbnhDNjqZimq6VAD6sjUse/GSHyEudVoIKqLqprn8IrQh/5pj34qP/QnSPs= Message-ID: <161717d50603091530v1ce55197l7448228c1219462@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 18:30:20 -0500 From: "Dave Neuer" To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: [future of drivers?] a proposal for binary drivers. Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <161717d50603090713r50471974tb0089863324e88c0@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2707 Lines: 62 On 3/9/06, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Copyright law also absolutely > > gives me monopoly power over derivitive works - you can't even create > > a work derived from my dropped-from-airplane poem without my > > permission, much less distribute one. > > No, that's not true on two counts. > > First, your last part "much less distribute one" is utterly false. > Copyright law does not give you any special rights to restrict the > distribution of derivative works. You're being rather hyper-technical and semantic here, aren't you? You clearly can't distribute something you can't legally "prepare" in the first place. > > Second, your first part, that it gives you monopoly power over the creation > of derivative works is also false. First sale and fair use can give people > the right to create derivative works. OK, 14 USC 106(2) gives me monopoly power, subject to certain restrictions. You seemed to have missed my point, as none of the restrictions you mentioned include creation of derivative software programs for commercial distribution. In another reply, you wrote: > > You cannot copyright an idea. "A Foo2000 SCSI driver for Linux 2.6" is an > *idea*. So you cannot argue that you have copyright on every practically > possible way to create such a driver. Your argument, if extended to fiction, is equivalent to "'An elaboration of Gone With the Wind' is an idea." There may be such a thing as an idea corresponding to "an elaboration of Gone With the Wind," but once a reader has the embodiment of that idea in their hands, a work subject to copyright has obviously been created, and it's up to the courts to decide whether it's a derived work or not. Linux is a copyrighted work, so "A Foo2000 SCSI driver for Linux 2.6," once it gets embodied in software, unless it's implemented in userspace, is most likely going to be a work derived from the copyrighted expression which is the linux kernel. I don't think a software company is going to get away with declaring that their driver is parody (though I've seen code that appears to be a parody of computer programming generally), and if they're careful enough not to use the same symbols as me... well, they won't have created a derived work, but other important senses of the word "work" probably won't apply to their program, either. Anyway, since I'm not a lawyer and no one is suing anyone, I'm really, really done now. Night, Dave - 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/