Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933058AbXBQWSs (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:18:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933057AbXBQWSs (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:18:48 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.231]:63770 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933055AbXBQWSr (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:18:47 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=jJOHaNMROEVaCFiJCNcoRIcY/qHSBVf2OlcqvarRk3mr3dJhL7FdV/kVRvkRRDnuGWELD3L76KS05XLrsCfAv/MhhROmBpiYGHSNxjvWiTsEeRpTXjnTdDkbmnfiA+GrGoXH98eZk9oKDPGGB66AIXCr6qM6BRBe201xPVDuhHY= Message-ID: <161717d50702171418w2eecc38bse12df666e974a08b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:18:45 -0500 From: "Dave Neuer" Reply-To: mr.fred.smoothie@pobox.com To: davids@webmaster.com Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <161717d50702160912x6dc4efbahcfb02f665ae3ec8a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2093 Lines: 42 On 2/16/07, David Schwartz wrote: > > > On 2/16/07, David Schwartz 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? I think you are reading Lexmark wrong. First off, Lexmark ruled that scenes a faire applied to the toner-level calculation, not "make a toner cartridge that works with a particular Lexmark printer." It was the toner-calculation algorithm that could't be done any other sane way, which made the TLP unprotectable via copyright. The opinion says, "Both prongs of the infringement test, in other words, consider 'copyrightability,' which at its heart turns on the principle that copyright protection extends to expression, not to ideas." You're saying that there's no other way to interface device drivers to an operating system than the current Linux driver model? That's strange, since it's a different driver model than Linux had previously, and it's also different from the BeOS driver interface, etc. If the Linux driver interface is protectable, it doesn't seem like scenes a faire applies. - 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/