From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946268AbXBPV0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:26:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946269AbXBPV0k (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:26:40 -0500 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.170]:5072 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946268AbXBPV0j (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:26:39 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=IoHwTbdNLpOdWyaUgfS5wq1dmUCU1P4vwm3gIPPIKOJpSIxzsd0tZHS9GyJA0wAU9FH0QyyE/Whi+MGHVMdwye3a49TbG7h77UPsyJ7r3IthGjcvMHfHFo1f9ex9GPPdmjmxSBLRqwlwn3Se890UH5oq4AAJdTIQ5w+52H/xv/g= Message-ID: <7b69d1470702161326j7f15402xfb24a741b4ff8176@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:26:37 -0600 From: "Scott Preece" To: "Dave Neuer" Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Cc: davids@webmaster.com, "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: <161717d50702160912x6dc4efbahcfb02f665ae3ec8a@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <3d57814d0702152245q19e19141me0b999fb051ac7b6@mail.gmail.com> <161717d50702160912x6dc4efbahcfb02f665ae3ec8a@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/16/07, Dave Neuer 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. --- "Interface the xyz device to the Linux kernel" is a functional idea in pretty much the same sense that the Lexmark case involved. You generally can't copyright functional interfaces; there is a strong prejudice towards allowing interoperability. [IANAL and this is, as noted preivously, subject to the winds of judicial favor.]