Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:26:37 -0600 | From | "Scott Preece" <> | Subject | Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers |
| |
On 2/16/07, Dave Neuer <mr.fred.smoothie@pobox.com> wrote: > On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> 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.] - 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/
|  |