On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
> > done properly (and I think we use it fairly well).
> >
> > I think we _can_ do things where
On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
>> >Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
>> >
>> >You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
>> >accessing I/O space.
>>
>> A NULL fault
On Dec 14 2006 08:46, Ben Collins wrote:
>I have to agree with your your whole statement. The gradual changes to
>lock down kernel modules to a particular license(s) tends to mirror the
>slow lock down of content (music/movies) that people complain about so
>loudly. It's basically becoming DRM for
> > The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> > going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> > will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
> > binary drivers become pervasive. I don't want to see Linux destroyed
> >
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
> > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
> > distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
>
> Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
> and people who've no clue about
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
> done properly (and I think we use it fairly well).
>
> I think we _can_ do things where we give clear hints to people that
> "we think this is such an internal Lin
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> For the record, I also disagree with the sneaky backdoor way people want to
> add EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() to key subsystems that drivers will need.
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if done
properly (and I think we use it fa
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 01:54:24PM +0100, Hans-J??rgen Koch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 13:42 schrieb Alan:
> > > > uio also doesn't handle hotplug, pci and other "small" matters.
> > >
> > > uio is supposed to be a very thin layer. Hotplug and PCI are already
> > > handled by other
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> But I would ask that they honour the licence on the code I release, and
> perhaps more importantly on the code I import from other GPL sources.
This is a total non-argument, and it doesn't get any betetr by being
mindlessly repeated over and over
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote:
> > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
> > distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
>
> Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
> and people who've no clue about
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 15:10 +, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > Here's the list of proprietary drivers that are in Ubuntu's restricted
> > modules package:
> >
> > madwifi (closed hal implementation, being replaced in openhal)
> > fritz
> > ati
> > nvi
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:11:33AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If a kernel developer or a competitor sends a cease&desist letter to
> > such a distribution, the situation changes from a complicated "derived
> > work" discussion to
> The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people
> distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.
Doesn't that sound even more like the music industry ? Pick on Grandma,
and people who've no clue about the issue. It's not the way to solve such
problems. The world d
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> The fact is, the reason I don't think we should force the issue is very
> simple: copyright law is simply _better_off_ when you honor the admittedly
> gray issue of "derived work". It's gray. It's not black-and-white. But
> b
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:07:04AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> > Thing is, if kernel.org kernels get patched to disallow binary modules,
> > whats to stop Ubu
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:10:57PM +, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> More items will be added to that list soon.
> E.g. Linux Binary only, Creative X-Fi sound card drivers for Q2 2007.
> http://opensource.creative.com/
Wow. That wins 'most ironic hostname' award for 2006.
Thankfully onboard
Rik van Riel wrote:
Why would users buy a piece of hardware that needs a binary
only driver that's unsupportable, when they can buy a similar
piece of hardware that has a driver that's upstream and is
supported by every single Linux distribution out there?
In my experience it falls into a numb
Alan wrote:
Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open
drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the
kernel ASAP for example.
ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we can.
Jeff
[1] http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/
-
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Because I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your
political agendas, please.
ACK, I agree completely. I think its a silly, political, non-technical
decision being pushed here.
For the record, I also disagree with the sneaky backdoor way people wan
Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:03:10AM -0500, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > The point of banning binary drivers would be to leverage hardware
> > companies into either releasing open source drivers, or the specs for
> > someone else to write them.
>
> IMHO, i
> Pretty much every license under the sun is getting violated,
> and people are getting away with it. The GPL is not special
> in this regard.
That may begin to change in time. There are a lot of people getting very
angry at the political level about the way large companies in particular
flout cop
>But I would ask that they honour the licence on the code I release, and
>perhaps more importantly on the code I import from other GPL sources.
It's not a question of "honoring the license"; it's a matter of what
is the reach of the license, as it relates to derivitive works. It's
a complicated s
Ben Collins wrote:
Here's the list of proprietary drivers that are in Ubuntu's restricted
modules package:
madwifi (closed hal implementation, being replaced in openhal)
fritz
ati
nvidia
ltmodem (does that even still work?)
ipw3945d (not a kernel
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 08:07:04AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> > going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> > will, I fear
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 10:36:13AM +, Alan wrote:
> > 2008? I bet a lot of people would read the above to say that their
> > system will just drop dead of a New Year's hangover, and they'll freak.
> > I wouldn't want to be the one getting all the email at that point...
>
> I wouldn't worry. E
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 21:39 -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
> binary drivers become p
Greg KH wrote:
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
Pretty much every license under the sun is getting violated,
and people are getting away with it. The GPL is not special
in this regard.
> So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
> first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to
> other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the
> other direction.
I can probably speak for Ubuntu in saying we wont incl
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> >Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> >> debug a (large) kernel module?
> >
> >You th
On Dec 14 2006 12:42, Alan wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
>Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
>> debug a (large) kernel module?
>
>You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
>a
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:39:11PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The Ubuntu feisty fawn mess was a dangerous warning bell of where we're
> going. If we don't stand up at some point, and ban binary drivers, we
> will, I fear, end up with an unsustainable ecosystem for Linux when
> binary driv
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 08:15:59PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
> first.
You don't think I already get enough hatemail from binary-module users ? :)
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscrib
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 13:42 schrieb Alan:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> > debug a (large) kernel module?
>
> You think its any easier to debug because the code n
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You think it's easier for a manufacturer of industrial IO cards to
> debug a (large) kernel module?
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
accessing I/O space.
> > uio also doesn't
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That said, I'm going to suggest that you people talk to your COMPANY
> LAWYERS on this, and I'm personally not going to merge that particular
> code unless you can convince the people you work for to merge it first.
That's quoting materi
Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2006 12:14 schrieb Alan:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
> "Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> > > our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
> >
> > If filesystems can be
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:21:20 +
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they fail to do that under the 'honour system' then I'm not averse to
> 'enforcing' it by technical measures. (For some value of 'enforcement'
> which is easy for them to patch out if their lawyers are _really_ sure
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:01:15 -0800
"Hua Zhong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> > our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
>
> If filesystems can be in user space, why can't drivers be in user space? On
> what *tec
> 2008? I bet a lot of people would read the above to say that their
> system will just drop dead of a New Year's hangover, and they'll freak.
> I wouldn't want to be the one getting all the email at that point...
I wouldn't worry. Everyone will have patched it back out again by then,
or made the
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:10:15AM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> > An updated version is below.
>
> If you're adding this, you should probably schedule EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> for removal at the same time, as this essentially renders that irrelevant.
>
> That
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 20:15 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say
> that its authors have to conform to our worldview.
I wouldn't argue that _anyone_ else should be exposed to my worldview; I
think the Geneva Convention has someth
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 16:55 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Oh, and for those who have asked me how we would enforce this after this
> date if this decision is made, I'd like to go on record that I will be
> glad to take whatever legal means necessary to stop people from
> violating this.
I see no _overr
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> The point of banning binary drivers would be to leverage hardware
> companies into either releasing open source drivers, or the specs for
> someone else to write them.
IMHO, it's up to the users to decide if they want to keep buying hardware
which le
> Someone also mentioned that we could just put a nice poem into the
> kernel module image in order to be able to enforce our copyright license
> in any court of law.
>
> Full bellies of fish
> Penguins sleep under the moon
> Dream of wings that fly
>
> thanks,
Whoever says that
Well said, and I agree with ALL of your statements contained in this
post. About damn time this was addressed.
Jeff
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates the license of the kernel a
Hi.
Good arguments have already been put against it, so I'll just keep it
short and sweet (FWIW)
Nacked-by: Nigel Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Regards,
Nigel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
> I think allowing binary hardware drivers in userspace hurts
> our ability to leverage companies to release hardware specs.
If filesystems can be in user space, why can't drivers be in user space? On
what *technical* ground?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
compatible modules has been set.
Greg KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> An updated version is below.
If you're adding this, you should probably schedule EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
for removal at the same time, as this essentially renders that irrelevant.
That being said...
First, this is adding the measure at module load time. Any copyri
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
> kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
> of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
> compatible modules has been set.
Btw, I real
Hi,
I think that...
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
From: Greg Kroah-Hartmna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
... (most probably) there...
Subject: Notify non-GPL module loading will be going away in January 2008
Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
kernel violates
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 02:30:26AM +0100, Grzegorz Kulewski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that...
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
> >From: Greg Kroah-Hartmna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ... (most probably) there...
>
> >Subject: Notify non-GPL module loading will be going away in January 2008
>
fish for birds alone?
no, teach suits how to leave more
fish to go around
Cheers,
- Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FA
Greg's patch:
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: This module will not be able "
> + "to be loaded after January 1, 2008 due to its "
> + "license.\n", mod->name);
If you're going to go ahead with this, shouldn't the message say
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Full bellies of fish
> Penguins sleep under the moon
> Dream of wings that fly
Snif. That touched me deep inside.
Linus
PS. Or maybe it was the curry I ate yesterday.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 05:43:29PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Greg's patch:
>
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: This module will not be able "
> > + "to be loaded after January 1, 2008 due to its "
> > + "license.\n", mod->nam
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 02:09:11PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 01:47:21PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:32:50 -0800
> > Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting
> > > around, if
101 - 158 of 158 matches
Mail list logo
