| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:08:23 +0000 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Scott Preece <sepreece@...il.com> Cc: Dave Neuer <mr.fred.smoothie@...ox.com>, davids@...master.com, "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers Hi! > >> (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. You are welcome to write kernel modules without including *any* header files. That may be ok in parts of US based on precedent you cite. Somehow I do not think v j is doing, so he is violating our copyright. Seems simple to me... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists