Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751042AbXBPLmp (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751113AbXBPLmp (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:45 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:4629 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751042AbXBPLmo (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:42:44 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:42:38 -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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: <20070216020050.e1955a72.jas6180@gmail.com> Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:42:55 -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, Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:42:57 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2132 Lines: 51 > What are you talking about? This is not about software patents AT ALL. Yes, it is. The difference between a copyright and a patent is this simple -- a copyright protects the one particular way you chose to do something and a patent protects every possible way of doing the same thing (or employing the same method). > Not one person is claiming they have a patent on whatever it is that > V J's company is putting out (especially since we have no idea what > that might be). Patents != copyright. That's exactly what they're doing. Knowing only the *function* of his program, they are claiming it must obey their licensing terms. They have no idea exactly how he chose to implement that function, but claim they must own it anyway. > Software patents: This super cool red button idea is mine. If you make > a red button, you have to give me money. > Copyright: This code is mine. You can't copy my code without my > permission. Not quite. Copyright is: This particular implementation is mine, but you are free to implement any idea any *other* way you want. You simply can't implement an idea precisely the way I did it, but all ideas are open to you. > GPL: You can copy my code all you want, BUT if you add on to it > and give out > the results, you have to give out your code too! But that's not what's happening here. "A Linux driver for graphics cards based on the X1950 chipset" is not an "add on" to Linux. It's an idea and a function all on its own. > Your argument might have some sort of merit, but I gave up trying to work > through it. Stop confusing patents and copyright and try again. I do not have them confused. You cannot own "any practical way to make a driver for Linux" under copyright, only patent gives you that kind of power. You can, of course, own "the particular way I chose to make a Linux driver, out of many other equally-good ways". 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/