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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
