From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 19:46:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 19:46:16 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:10999 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 26 May 2002 19:46:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] New driver for Artop [Acard] controllers. From: Alan Cox To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Vojtech Pavlik , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Martin Dalecki , Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 27 May 2002 01:42:30 +0100 Message-Id: <1022460150.11859.187.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 00:08, Andre Hedrick wrote: > All of the original code described how to make the hardware operate. If > your code makes the hardware operate, then it uses material copyrighted > and owned by me. Really. You think if I read a GPL'd example of a piece of code I can't write a non GPL'd one. Companies use two sets of people to ensure that there are no questions (one set write the spec, the other to write from that spec in a different building). > I suggest you think real hard and long about your decisions to go about > calling derived works from stolen/deleted Copyrights. Rude yes, but derived work.. open question. I guess Eben can give you a reasonably sane opinion if its so important.