On Llu, 2005-04-04 at 21:47, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)
There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.
Firmware being seperate does make a lot of sense. It isn't going away
but it doesn't generally belong in kernel now we have
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:56:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 05 avril 2005 à 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> > > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent operations. People who
> */
> /* Distribution, either as is or modified syntactically to adapt to the
> */
> /* layout of the surrounding GPLed code is allowed, provided this copyright
> */
> /* notice is acompanying it
&
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module
should
be
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent
> > actually there is; you just perfectly described it. Until we have
> > drivers that can use such firmware (and need it in initrds and the like)
> > infrastructure for that is unlikely to come into existence, and until
> > there is such infrastructure, driver authors like you are unlikely to
>
Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:40:24PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > * The firmware distribution infrastructure is basically non-existent.
> > There is no standard way to make sure that a firmware separated from the
> > driver gets to all users.
> >
> > * The firmware bundling
> * The firmware distribution infrastructure is basically non-existent.
> There is no standard way to make sure that a firmware separated from the
> driver gets to all users.
>
> * The firmware bundling infrastructure is basically non-existent.
> (Arjan talked about this) There needs to be a
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent operations. People who are advocating the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a Ãcrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> > disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is considered a "derivative work" of the
gpl'd code.
The GPL states "In
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 14:17 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit :
> > You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares
> > should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not
> > free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the "main"
> >
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit :
> >> You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >> nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> >> firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> >>
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Humberto Massa wrote:
> > >But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
> > >around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
> > >firmware
ers not. But
>>>the important point is that it makes that redistribution legal.
>>>
>>>
>>If putting the firmwares outside the kernel makes *them*
>>distributable, then the binary kernel image is already distributable
>>-- just not DFSG-free. The import
image is already distributable -- just not
DFSG-free. The important fact WRT Debian, IMHO, is that putting the
firmwares outside the kernel makes the kernel binary image DFSG-free.
HTH,
Massa
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we don't want to do so? I
Software Foundation, located in the file */
/* LICENSE. */
/* Distribution, either as is or modified syntactically to adapt to the */
/* layout of the surrounding GPLed code is allowed
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>
>>>You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
>>>other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
>>>sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
> >But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
> >around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
> >firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
> > Then probably the extremists in Debian
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
> > other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
> > sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex dumps
are not source code). What Sven asked was: "Hey, can I state
> > I agree. And that really doesn't need a lot of infrastructure,
> > basically just a tarball that unpacks to /lib/firmware, maybe a specfile
> > and debian/ dir in addition.
>
>
> At the moment there is -zero- infrastructure that would allow my tg3 to
> continue working, when I upgrade to
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can
see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the
kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:39:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
>> from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
>
> I think
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
> from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's what we should do. I currently don't have any firmware
requiring
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
> > > config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
> > > firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
> > > entirely.
> >
> > I
> > Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
> > config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
> > firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
> > entirely.
>
> I think the infrasturcture is quite mature. We have a lot of drivers
> that
Hello Jeff, ...
If i can believe what i see in :
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/anno/drivers/net/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/net|related/drivers/net/tg3.c|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
(which may or may not be correct and complete, since i am not really familiar
with bk and
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > > weren't going to do it, but
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I think they will be accepted if they first introduce a transition
> period where tg3 will do request_firmware() and only use the built-in
> firmware if that fails.
Fine with me.
> Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
> > are just fed up of
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
> > are just fed up of
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
> are just fed up of people bringing up the issue and then failing to do
> anything about
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 10:32 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > > that the firmware included in it is
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> > GPL, so why not say it
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
I don't think anyone here has disagreed. What almost everyone
-free.
HTH, Massa
Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine
(5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by
Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
Just so you know I'm not really talking out of my rear end, IANAL, but I
have four
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a crit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 14:17 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a crit :
You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares
should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not
free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the main
archive. The
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is considered a derivative work of the
gpl'd code.
The GPL states In addition,
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a crit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not really...
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent operations. People who are advocating the
* The firmware distribution infrastructure is basically non-existent.
There is no standard way to make sure that a firmware separated from the
driver gets to all users.
* The firmware bundling infrastructure is basically non-existent.
(Arjan talked about this) There needs to be a a way
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:40:24PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
* The firmware distribution infrastructure is basically non-existent.
There is no standard way to make sure that a firmware separated from the
driver gets to all users.
* The firmware bundling infrastructure is
actually there is; you just perfectly described it. Until we have
drivers that can use such firmware (and need it in initrds and the like)
infrastructure for that is unlikely to come into existence, and until
there is such infrastructure, driver authors like you are unlikely to
want to
2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Brian Gerst wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module
should
be
as is or modified syntactically to adapt to the
*/
/* layout of the surrounding GPLed code is allowed, provided this copyright
*/
/* notice is acompanying it
*/
Just a word of warning: The wording above fails to make it clear what
the second
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent operations. People who
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:56:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 à 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
I don't think anyone here has disagreed. What almost everyone has
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 10:32 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT*
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people bringing up the issue and then failing to do
anything about it
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I think they will be accepted if they first introduce a transition
period where tg3 will do request_firmware() and only use the built-in
firmware if that fails.
Fine with me.
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
Hello Jeff, ...
If i can believe what i see in :
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/anno/drivers/net/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/net|related/drivers/net/tg3.c|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
(which may or may not be correct and complete, since i am not really familiar
with bk and
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
entirely.
I think the infrasturcture is quite mature. We have a lot of drivers
that require it to
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
entirely.
I think the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's what we should do. I currently don't have any firmware
requiring
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:39:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can
see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the
kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection
I agree. And that really doesn't need a lot of infrastructure,
basically just a tarball that unpacks to /lib/firmware, maybe a specfile
and debian/ dir in addition.
At the moment there is -zero- infrastructure that would allow my tg3 to
continue working, when I upgrade to a tg3
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex dumps
are not source code). What Sven asked was: Hey, can I state
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may
as is or modified syntactically to adapt to the */
/* layout of the surrounding GPLed code is allowed, provided this copyright */
/* notice is acompanying
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally
-- just not
DFSG-free. The important fact WRT Debian, IMHO, is that putting the
firmwares outside the kernel makes the kernel binary image DFSG-free.
HTH,
Massa
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
> is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
> file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
> >the
> >firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> > that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is
> > not
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is not
> of dubious legal standing, and that we could get sued over for GPL
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing it.
Actually, there are some
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >>Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
> >>problem, or the ones discussing it.
> >
> >
> >Actually, there are
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion
Ian> I think what Greg may have meant[0] was that if it bothers
Ian> you, then you should act by contacting the copyright holders
Ian> privately yourself in each case that you come across and
Ian> asking them if you may add a little comment etc, and then
Ian> submit patches
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
> > >
> > >
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing it.
Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in
the Linux source base. Last time this
i am doing this in order to solve that
problem.
> This sucks, yes.
Not really. Once the, post-sarge, transition is done, you just will have to
load the non-free .udeb from the non-free d-i archive, or install the module
package from non-free, and you won't even notice.
Sarge kernels ar
701 - 800 of 862 matches
Mail list logo
