Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932440AbXBSRyJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:54:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932439AbXBSRyJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:54:09 -0500 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:1371 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932440AbXBSRyI (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:54:08 -0500 From: "David Schwartz" To: Subject: RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:05 -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: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:18 -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, Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:53:20 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1767 Lines: 41 > On Saturday 17 February 2007 15:19, David Schwartz wrote: > > Static Controls argued that taking the TLP was the only practical way to > > make a cartridge that would work with that printer. > Which shows how that case is different from writing Linux drivers. For > example, looking at the example the OP was himself proposing a few > alternative approaches to work around the limitation they were hitting: > could just switch to static major/minors instead of dynamics ones, they > could skip sysfs, or they could even reimplement something like sysfs > themselves, or whatever other interface they deem useful for the > purpose of > plopping in their own binary blob on top of it, sort of like what nVidia > and ATi do for their stuff. These are all different functional ideas. It is no response to an argument like this to say, "you could always express a different idea". Copyright only protects the one way the author chose to express an idea. You should not ever need to change an idea to get around copyright. I hate to sound like a broken record, but have you read Lexmark v. Static Controls? There was a section where they talked about how perhaps you could have used a different algorithm to measure the toner level. You may have to change your idea to get around a patent, but you should never, ever have to change a functional idea to get around a copyright. Do you realize that you are arguing for software patents? And worse, for patents that are easy to get (and last as long) as copyrights. 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/