From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 10:21:56 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187FA10656EE for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:21:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (agora.rdrop.com [199.26.172.34]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5AE8FC0C for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:21:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: from agora.rdrop.com (66@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.7) with ESMTP id mBFALpN6033589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:21:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from perryh@pluto.rain.com) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by agora.rdrop.com (8.13.1/8.12.9/Submit) with UUCP id mBFALpsf033588; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:21:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from fbsd61 by pluto.rain.com (4.1/SMI-4.1-pluto-M2060407) id AA03950; Mon, 15 Dec 08 02:13:32 PST Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:16:34 -0800 From: perryh@pluto.rain.com To: rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au Message-Id: <49462e82.0JabFKZe33ZkdtYT%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <20081212002813.GD32300@kokopelli.hydra> <20081211170011.777236f8@gom.home> <20081212015814.GB32982@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212120437.B3687@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212552.GF37185@kokopelli.hydra> <1229230200.18610.87.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081215065327.GM5527@kokopelli.hydra> <1229325063.8820.5.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1229325063.8820.5.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:21:56 -0000 > > Unfortunately, anything covered by a patent, as I hinted > > above, is verboten. Er, doesn't it depend on what is patented? If the h/w itself is patented, but its software-visible interface is not, there should be no problem writing a driver for that h/w. OTOH if the algorithms used in the driver are patented it would be an infringement to reproduce them. > But if I remember my legal and ethics course correctly if you > can arrive at a conclusion through your own research then your > reasonably clear. Not under patent, at least in the US, last I heard. (IANAL) A patent is infringed by any reproduction of the technology involved, even entirely independently. Someone described the justification as avoiding a situation in which it would pay to be ignorant of what others had done. > For example, the drivers are closed source but the hardware itself > is an entirely separate issue. So if you can create your own > drivers by your own research into how the hardware is setup then > the drivers created could licensed under your own terms- open > source or otherwise. At least in the US, that works for copyright but not for patent. > The drivers and hardware may operate together but are separate > items of creativity, therefore do not operate under the same > patent. Again, it depends on exactly what is patented (strictly speaking, what the patent's "claims" are.)