Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:08:23 +0000 | From | Pavel Machek <> | 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |