From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 12:27:48 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 CE49C106567A for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:27:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (202-172-126-254.cpe.qld-1.comcen.com.au [202.172.126.254]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7836E8FC26 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:27:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (unknown [192.168.0.199]) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 486475C7F for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:28:29 +1000 (EST) From: Da Rock To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <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> <49462e82.0JabFKZe33ZkdtYT%perryh@pluto.rain.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:27:30 +1000 Message-Id: <1229344057.1647.49.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 12:27:48 -0000 On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 02:16 -0800, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > > > 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. > If you have done your own research then the algorithms wouldn't necessarily be the same- they'd nearly certainly be different, wouldn't they? So isn't that the basis for the patent? A patent is a registration of an idea. Two different ideas can still arrive at the same conclusion. > > 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.)