Linux and OpenSource is evolution - go on and create your closed source drivers
and do your own closed-source fork - go on and create your own little homo
neanderthalensis !
___
SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
k
> Macrovision.
Just about every vendors hardware can do Macrovision. They just forget to
include the Macrovision control in published code, or hide it in a tiny
extra driver (Matrox) or in the BIOS switching firmware (SiS)
> Just so you know I'm not making this up: I know where the "defeat
> Mac
On 2/25/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
> simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Yes, I rather chuckled at the irony as I wrote that one. :-
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
No, it's a way of saying "yes, there are deliberate performance limits
in the driver code, but they're harder to explain tha
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in
> > headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can
> > copy those functions into their proprietary module.
>
> Yes, it does. Have you read Lexmark
> > Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most
> > practical way
> > to write his driver.
> Most practical way to get something Windows compatible is to pirate
> Windows; I do not think that gives me permission to do so.
This is comparing apples to oranges because Windows has
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTE
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include
> is not thereby a "derivative work" of the kernel,
> no matter how many entrypoints are labeled EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or
> pro
On Sun 2007-02-25 03:33:38, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
> > from his
> > binary-only part?
>
> Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
> to write his driver.
Most practical way to get something W
> Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.o
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
reada
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
> that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
> to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
> measure against having their retail marg
> of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
> that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
> to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
> measure against having their retail margins destroyed by nitwits who
> take out all th
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds
two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he
can get away with that.
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
from his
binary
> But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
> from his
> binary-only part?
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
to write his driver.
> I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what
> embedded people are doing; I do
Hi!
> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
> readable.
>
> I've dr
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>...
> The only way GPL'ed code can be become copyrighted by the FSF is if
> you explicitly sign a copyright statement
>...
And even this is only possible if permitted by copyright law.
E.g. German copyright law explicitely states tha
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
> today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedd
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:26 + Alan wrote:
> > me off, and in the meantime, you know where to find your keyboard's
> > "stick my fingers in my ears and shout la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" key.
> > :-)
>
> I was hoping you'd take the pseudo-legal noise elsewhere.
Yes. I find it interesting, bu
> Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
> today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded (including the port to Linux
of Algorithmic
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
> for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you take the microsoft windows source code and compile it yourself
> believe me you will get sued if you ship the resulting binaries and you
> will lose in court.
"misappropriation of trade secrets" as well as copyright infringement
But
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote:
> > As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates*
> > the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
> > library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states
> > (in
>
> Not that
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
> But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that
> the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk.
>
> - Ted
Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:17:16PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote:
> Since I tailor the license I apply to code I produce to meet the needs of the
> person or entity I am writing it for, I've never run into this. In truth, the
> LGPL is, IMHO, a piece of garbage. (as is the GPL - if you release code un
> compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
> for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all which took about 30 minutes
of brain time
> As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the
> GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
> library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in
Not that I can see no, but you could take this to a list with lawye
D. Hazelton wrote:
(as is the GPL - if you release code under
the GPL you no longer have a legal right to it. Note the following text that
appears in the GPL:
" We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, on re-reading the GPL, I see exactly why they made that pair of
exceptions. Where it's quite evident that a small to mid scale parsers that
could have been written *without* the use of Bison is clearly a
non-derivative work - Bison was
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
" We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software."
--IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the *
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer
> > generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their
> > inclusion in the source file that i
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
> shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
> given you the compiler he compiled it
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
> shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
> given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
> code is a nice piece
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
code is a nice piece of literature but of no engineering utility; but
that's the situation
On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a
"derivative work".
Far from it. Try reading to the end.
We all know that #include is mostly non copyrightable, so I
mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may not nee
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed
my POP server too! That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL.
And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to
need to understand how a lawsuit for copy
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
> r
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
readable.
I've drafted summaries fr
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it
in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
of the code a
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it
> in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
> open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
> of the code and the cleverness is ke
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> Flame bait alert:
> I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
> I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
> from the "users" view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual
> t
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> > Flame bait alert:
> > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
> > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
> > f
v j wrote:
Assuming these need not be GPL, I have a problem with
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and the general trend in the direction of making
proprietary drivers harder on companies. Our drivers use basic
interfaces in the kernel like open, read, write, ioctl, semaphores,
interrupts, timers etc. This is f
v j wrote:
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just
doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what
rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code
makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 21:19 -0800, v j wrote:
[...]
> Now it would also be worthwhile to contemplate what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> does to this popularity. I don't know. I am just giving you my
The big problem with such discussions (as this) are: It is a law
decision which license applies in which situ
v j wrote:
Now the popularity of Linux is exploding in the embedded space. Nobody
talks of VxWorks and OSE anymore. It is all Linux. Perhaps it would be
a worthwhile experiment to study this surge in popularity. I am not an
expert, but perhaps the reason is "it works so goddamn well and has a
we
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to read that.
I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is
ok with me posting this, so enjoy:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html
There ya go.
Trent
-
To unsub
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and, alth
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of
them, I think he has some
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly learnt a lot.
Combined responses
> On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under
> > the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you
> > "compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the
meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed
against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of
art in copyright law", and "not a valid
And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the
meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed
against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of
art in copyright law", and "not a valid limitation of scope". If not,
I highly recommend to you t
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing you if you can't be
bothered to look back in the thread and Google a bit. Think of it as
a penny ante, which is pretty cheap in a card game with billion-dollar
table stakes.
Well, with tha
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that's what I figured yes, as you're obviously not interested in
convincing anyone of your opinions, otherwise you wouldn't mind
repeating yourself when someone asks you a simple question.
No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing yo
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can we put the gamesmanship on "low" here for a moment? Ask yourself
which is more likely: am I a crank who spends years researching the
legal background of the GPL solely for the purpose of ranting
incoherently on debian-legal and LKML,
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide by conditions
of a license before you can copy a copyright work?
Please, tell us the names of these appellate court decisions so that
we can read them and weep.
Can we put the games
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't have to argue these points, because they're obvious to anyone
who cares to do their own homework. Appellate court decisions _are_
the law, my friend; read 'em and weep.
Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide by
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, now you're going to argue that there's no such thing as an
"incompatible license" or "mere aggregation" and that these are just
words that were made up for the GPL, so they can be ignored.. another
pointless semantic argument beca
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under
the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you
"compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you
create a work that "adapts" or "
> On 2/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no such thing as the "combined work". If I put a DVD
> > of The Phantom
> > Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a
> > "combined work".
> If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a comb
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in
> the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality.
It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two
copyri
Am Montag, 19. Februar 2007 22:50 schrieb Michael K. Edwards:
> On 2/19/07, linux-os (Dick Johnson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > FWIW. A license is NOT a contract in the United States, according to
> > contract law. A primary requirement of a contract is an agreement. A
> > contract cannot, there
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in
the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality.
It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two
copyright works you are not obliged to conform with the condition
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work
exists then you're obviously too far from reality for anyone to reason
with.
Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in
the world, Mr. Consensu
On 2/19/07, linux-os (Dick Johnson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW. A license is NOT a contract in the United States, according to
contract law. A primary requirement of a contract is an agreement. A
contract cannot, therefore, be forced. Licenses, on the other hand,
can be forced upon the user
On 2/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is no such thing as the "combined work". If I put a DVD of The Phantom
Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a
"combined work".
If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work
exists t
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/19/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> jurisdiction. Copyright infringement is a statutory tort, and the
>>> only limits to contracting away the right to sue for this tort are
>>> those provided in the copyright statute itself. A contrac
On 2/19/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> jurisdiction. Copyright infringement is a statutory tort, and the
> only limits to contracting away the right to sue for this tort are
> those provided in the copyright statute itself. A contract not to sue
> for tort is called a "license".)
I'd in
> jurisdiction. Copyright infringement is a statutory tort, and the
> only limits to contracting away the right to sue for this tort are
> those provided in the copyright statute itself. A contract not to sue
> for tort is called a "license".)
I'd insert large quantities of "In the USA" in the a
> On Saturday 17 February 2007 15:19, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Static Controls argued that taking the TLP was the only practical way to
> > make a cartridge that would work with that printer.
> Which shows how that case is different from writing Linux drivers. For
> example, looking at the exam
> Sigh. VJ is distributing the linux kernel with proprietary
> extensions. If you want to argue that the proprietary extensions in
> isolation are not derivative works of the kernel, fine, you might have
> a case, but the combined work, which VJ is distributing is *clearly* a
> derivative work a
Eensy weensy follow-up. No screed. Well, maybe just a _little_ screed.
On 2/18/07, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ulrich Drepper is known to be against current FSF's position on glibc
licence changing.
Will that stop the FSF? Will it stop Red Hat, MontaVista, or
CodeSourcery? Even
On 2/18/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, the FSF and many of its representatives, has claimed, on
many occassions, that the GPL infects across dynamic linking. That
is, if you write your own code that calls readline which links via a
dynamically linked shared library, and pe
Hi!
> >Contrawise, if Embedded developers do contribute their
> >device driver
> >changes back to the kernel, they will be fine. ...
> ---
>
> In fairness, though, some of the developers WILL bitch
> about your not
> using a recent kernel and not providing patches until
> products ship,
> des
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
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 01:26:47PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote carefully
> and correctly one set of people and to then total misconstrue the
> words of another.
>
> The FSF's argument in regards to readline is that you may not
> dist
On Sunday 18 February 2007 00:55, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Or they could run:
> find . -type f -exec
perl -i.bak -pe 's/EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL/EXPORT_SYMBOL/g'
> and be done with it. Or even just MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") in their
> module -- that's not "lying about the module license", it's "doing
> From: "Michael K. Edwards"
> Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> Subject: Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:56:00 -0800
[]
> How are you going to like being forced to fork the entire GNU corpus in
> whatever state it's in the day before
On second thought, let's not deconstruct this. It's too much work,
and it's a waste of time. Because if you can't read "anything other
people wrote is fair game, but what we write is sacred; our strategy
is to cajole when we can and strong-arm when we can't, and the law be
damned" into that, no
This screed is the last that I am going to pollute LKML with, at least
for a while. I'll write again if and when I have source code to
contribute, and if my off-topic vitriol renders my technical
contributions (if and when) unwelcome, I'll understand. FSF
skulduggery is not very relevant to the
On Feb 17, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:42, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> > Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If "make a toner cartridge
>> > that works with a particular Lexmark printer" is a functional
>> > idea, why is "make a graphics
On Feb 17, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interestingly, if you are right, then what online translation services like
> babelfish [...]
> but much harder to argue that it gives them the right to create a derivative
> work. (Of course, you could argue fair use.)
One could try
On 2/18/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you can
read that and still tolerate the stench of the FSF's argument that
linking against readline means they 0wn your source code, you have a
stronger stomach than I.
Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote caref
On 2/17/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Suppose someone created a work of fiction titled - for example -
"Picnic at Hanging Rock". And suppose further that this someone left
some issues unresolved at the end of the story, leaving many readers
feeling that they wanted one more chapter t
On 2/18/07, David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
by this same logic the EULA's that various commercial vendors use are
completely valid,
it doesn't matter what the intent is if it's not a legal thing to require.
Yes, it does matter.. the author of the work has defined the terms
under which yo
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007, Trent Waddington wrote:
Despite which, legal bullshit is best left for lawyers.. the *intent*
of the GPL is that if you distribute *any* changes, extensions or
plugins for a GPL work, you do so under the GPL. The law may not
allow for this to be enforced, but it shouldn't n
On 2/17/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that's grey at all. I think it's perfectly clear that linking
cannot create a derivative work. No automated process can -- it takes
creativity to create a derivative work. (That doesn't mean that just because
you can link A to B,
On 2/17/07, Giuseppe Bilotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Which shows how that case is different from writing Linux drivers. For
example, looking at the example the OP was himself proposing a few
alternative approaches to work around the limitation they were hitting:
could just switch to static maj
On Saturday 17 February 2007 15:19, David Schwartz wrote:
> Static Controls argued that taking the TLP was the only practical way to
> make a cartridge that would work with that printer.
Which shows how that case is different from writing Linux drivers. For
example, looking at the example the OP
On 2/17/07, Dave Neuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you are reading Lexmark wrong. First off, Lexmark ruled that
scenes a faire applied to the toner-level calculation, not "make a
toner cartridge that works with a particular Lexmark printer." It was
the toner-calculation algorithm that coul
> You're saying that there's no other way to interface device drivers to
> an operating system than the current Linux driver model?
Interfacing an X1900 graphics card to FreeBSD and interfacing an X1900
graphics card to Linux are two different ideas. They are *not* two
expressions of the same ide
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 c
> On 2/17/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Per this principle, it would seem that only source code and
> > hand-crafted object code would be governed by copyright, since
> > compilation is also an automated process.
> Well, compilation is probably equivalent to "translation", w
On 2/17/07, Scott Preece <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, compilation is probably equivalent to "translation", which is
specifically included in the Act as forming a derivative work.
Nix. "Translation" is something that humans do. What's governed by
copyright is the creative expression contai
On 2/17/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Per this principle, it would seem that only source code and
hand-crafted object code would be governed by copyright, since
compilation is also an automated process.
---
Well, compilation is probably equivalent to "translation", which is
sp
> On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:42, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If "make a toner cartridge that
> > works
> > with a particular Lexmark printer" is a functional idea, why is "make a
> > graphics driver that works with a particular Linux kernel" not? What is
(combined responses)
> On Feb 17, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Linking with kernel exported symbols in a kernel module is by many
> >> people considered creating a work derived from the kernel.
> > That's simply unreasonable. It is the most clear settled law that only
On Saturday 17 February 2007 03:42, David Schwartz wrote:
> Again, see Lexmark v. Static Controls. If "make a toner cartridge that
works
> with a particular Lexmark printer" is a functional idea, why is "make a
> graphics driver that works with a particular Linux kernel" not? What is
the
> differe
On Friday February 16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I cite the case only because it does a good job of explaining the principle.
> Copyright cannot allow you to own every practical way of accomplishing
> something. It can only allow you to own the one particular way you chose to
> do something out
1 - 100 of 253 matches
Mail list logo
