RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> > 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 an EULA. EULAs,
shrink-wraps, or the like change everything.

However, your statement is self-contradictory. By definition, to "pirate"
something is not to take what is practically needed to make it interoperate
with something else.

My point is that taking what you practically need to make something
interoperate with something else is *not* pirating. It is *not* taking
protected content, it is taking function.

How hard is this to understand -- you *cannot* use copyright to make any
ideas harder to express. A kernel driver to make a particular piece of
hardware work with a particular version of Linux *IS* an idea. You cannot
own the most practical ways to express an idea -- you can only own the one
way you chose to express that particular idea.

> 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 v. Static Controls? You can take what
you need to interoperate.

DS