From: "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <mr.fred.smoothie@gmail.com>
Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:42:33 -0800
Message-ID: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKIEIMBKAC.davids@webmaster.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <161717d50702160912x6dc4efbahcfb02f665ae3ec8a@mail.gmail.com>
Importance: Normal
Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1111
Lines: 29


> On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

> > (See, among other cases, Lexmark. v. Static
> > Controls.) A copyright is not a patent, you can only own
> > something if there
> > are multiple equally good ways to do it and you claim *one* of them.

> Only in a world where "write a Linux module" is a "functional idea." I
> don't think that the legal world in the US is an example of such a
> world, though you clearly do.

I'm not arguing "write a Linux module" is a functional idea. But "write code
so that a graphics card with a X1950 chipset works with a Linux kernel"
certainly is.

Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If "make a toner cartridge that works
with a particular Lexmark printer" is a functional idea, why is "make a
graphics driver that works with a particular Linux kernel" not? What is the
difference you think matters?

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/