[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1167730833.12526.35.camel@tara.firmix.at>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 10:40:33 +0100
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>
To: Trent Waddington <trent.waddington@...il.com>
Cc: "Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
Erik Mouw <erik@...ddisk-recovery.com>,
Giuseppe Bilotta <bilotta78@...pop.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
[...]
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
> hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about
> software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which
> violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release
> binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously,
> false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your
> source code then you're practising the invention without a license in
> binaries compiled from that source code. Period.
While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to
a so-called "agreement" on the costs.
> Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason:
> it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the
> benefit.
Which also may well be true.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
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