Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Markus Rechberger schrieb: > For example you (first trying to help, afterwards doing nothing), > * Manu Abraham (who has his project split from the maintree for a very > long time too), its not really splitted, is it? imho it is just seperated by now as loads of changes are involved. from my knowledge, if its finished its merged into main repo again. > * Marcel Siegert (who listens to other people's opinion and didn't > even spend a minute on thinking by himself how to find a solution) BULLSHIT! - sorry for shouting - i made a proposal in IRC - do you remember? it was concerning NO dvb changes and your devices/drivers could have been merged without this still happening personal "markus rechberger, i work for amd and i am the greatest" discussion. next thing i proposed in irc in a private talk. german language was taken to absolutely be sure that NO misunderstanding will take part. what has your reaction been on that? like always - "No, i wont agree to that kind of way" i just proposed to merge ALL of your patches, and, afterwards to rework it to the better solution! that IS how community works, but you always regret to perform any kind of compromise! Facts are: your patches would have been merged already if you would have been more cooperative YOU missed all offers, like mine, or the one johannes did. you just complain about all those bad people in the linux dvb community you send cc's to your very own em28xx ml, and if someone does a normal "reply all" you blame him to spam your ml sorry markus, but you dont have to call others like "buttlicker" while not being able to look into a mirror. imho, i dont care what you do, but if you want to perform everything on your own as YOU said, please start over, and take away EVERYTHING! even these bloody damned discussions on the linuxdvb ml. and, dont start to cry if someone will take your "old" GPL'ed code, as a base to implement the devices in a acceptable way, and therefore will make your very own project/split off obsolete. without regards marcel ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Am Donnerstag, den 12.07.2007, 00:37 +0200 schrieb Johannes Stezenbach: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:49:30AM +1000, Julian wrote: > > Since this disscussion is public... > > I'm going to put in my 2 cents. > > > > If you actually read his posts - Like alot of end users are. Its the flames > > and personal attacks that are coming from the group mentality here (im sure > > theres a wiki that can explain that too) > > Hm, Markus complains that the community doesn't work, and you're > complaining that it _does_ work -- or what do you mean by > "group mentality"? > [snip] I would be happy enough if Markus' would start telling, why he still keeps this tuner=37 stuff for his MK3s. --everyone knows that THIS DOESN'T work for UHF. Instead some tell you meanwhile, that MK3/4/5/6 tuners work with the old Philips API and you should accept their patches. No move since more than one year on that. So, others wait too. Hermann ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 03:49:30AM +1000, Julian wrote: > Since this disscussion is public... > I'm going to put in my 2 cents. > > If you actually read his posts - Like alot of end users are. Its the flames > and personal attacks that are coming from the group mentality here (im sure > theres a wiki that can explain that too) Hm, Markus complains that the community doesn't work, and you're complaining that it _does_ work -- or what do you mean by "group mentality"? > So if we are talking about changes to the core and how v4l and dvb devices > will work under linux in the future. He/they with the best solution will win > via non-bias peer review and hopefully *beyond* the linuxtv project. So if > Markus persists enough (he seems the only one consistently reworking what he > has already done - but everyone seems to skim past that in his posts...) he > will succeed. > > I admire anyone that makes an effort against the status quo that fails to > move > anywhere really, and spends more effect resisting any kind of change than > actually doing anything or offering an alternative. > > Just because he is outnumbered with support here means absolutely nothing. > May the best code win. Markus always portrays it that way, that there is a group of evil guys who block his code, who mislead him, who want to retain the status quo etc. pp. And now he is the lonely hero who stands up against the establishment... IMHO that is complete rubbish. There isn't even a formal group of "linuxtv core developers". I'm glad that Mauro agreed to merge the DVB and V4L trees into one, and to do the patch handling for the combined tree. And I'm glad Mike and Trent do a lot of patch review and bugfixing work, unseen and unrewarded my most people. Does that give them any authority to ACK and NACK patches as they see fit? Hell, no! But the community process works that way that if someone reviews a patch and has objections, then these objections must either be addressed or shown to be wrong. (Read Documentation/ManagementStyle in the kernel to see how it works ;-) In Markus case, serveral people who looked at his patches had objections, but he refused to address them, but was unable to either show the objections as being wrong, or get a _single_ other developer to back up his position. Instead there were threats to "fork the linuxtv project" if his code wouldn't get merged... The sad thing is that only a relatively small part of Markus' code has problems, and the bulk of it could have been merged without it, leaving out the xc3028 v4l/dvb arbitration functionality. But Markus didn't want this. Anyway, there are many patches which are rejected from the Linux kernel or have to go through significant transformations before they are allowed into the kernel. You should read the linux kernel mailing list for a while, maybe you'd then see that the entry level for patches into v4l/dvb is fairly low compared to the high standards required for core kernel code like scheduler, timekeeping, networking, VM, block IO layer etc. > >Your attempts to force the merge with flames and ultimatums > >(yes, plural) failed. Surprise, surprise... > > how soft do people get with their drivers that they see a patch submission - > as a flame? That's not what I said, I can tell a patch submission from a flame quite well, thanks. Johannes ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Since this disscussion is public... I'm going to put in my 2 cents. If you actually read his posts - Like alot of end users are. Its the flames and personal attacks that are coming from the group mentality here (im sure theres a wiki that can explain that too) So if we are talking about changes to the core and how v4l and dvb devices will work under linux in the future. He/they with the best solution will win via non-bias peer review and hopefully *beyond* the linuxtv project. So if Markus persists enough (he seems the only one consistently reworking what he has already done - but everyone seems to skim past that in his posts...) he will succeed. I admire anyone that makes an effort against the status quo that fails to move anywhere really, and spends more effect resisting any kind of change than actually doing anything or offering an alternative. Just because he is outnumbered with support here means absolutely nothing. May the best code win. >Your attempts to force the merge with flames and ultimatums >(yes, plural) failed. Surprise, surprise... how soft do people get with their drivers that they see a patch submission - as a flame? great fear patch bomb? it another year or so you might find that no patch will save you at all..no..its called a re-write then. The more you put it off, the worse its going to get. Time will tell. Trial and error is what its all about. remember . So Just try it. -Jules On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 7/11/07, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:18:35PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > Remember all that code could have been in the kernel for around 1 year > > > without breaking any device if these few core people (and there are > > > really only very few ones <5) wouldn't have tried to hit it down. > > > > This "the bad linuxtv guys blocked my drivers for years" > > allegation is unsubstancial as I tried to show in > > http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2007-June/018853.html > > "A few people offered to help you" is the same as: > > A few people (especially the ones which are mentioned later) partly > don't have a good overview about everything, and/or neither do they > care about several requirements which are needed to get something work > properly. > And these cool people would just work on the core and tell me that I > have to redo the code by myself and put all the work back to me just > because they're incapable of working together at all ... and hey we > had exactly the same situation 1 year ago and the only one who > seriously tried to get forward was Mauro. A few people like to hide > themself between their great DVB Code and try to play the masters here > which is not acceptable. > > How comes that Manu tells me that he won't ask Mauro that he should > push any of his code? Great community. > > > IMHO it is your inability to make compromises and work with > > the community which blocked the merge. Issues don't just > > magically resolve all by themselves if you just wait long enough. > > Your attempts to force the merge with flames and ultimatums > > (yes, plural) failed. Surprise, surprise... > > > > > I'm sure the project would go on way faster if everyone who has never > > > investigated the dvb core project and who has no experience with that > > > piece of code (and writing a dvb driver doesn't shed much light about > > > the dvb framework) would just stay out of everything. > > > > You think you're the only competent programmer, and everyone > > who dares to have different opinions just gets in the > > way and holds you up? Check this out: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnostic > >_criteria > > For example you (first trying to help, afterwards doing nothing), > * Manu Abraham (who has his project split from the maintree for a very > long time too), > * Marcel Siegert (who listens to other people's opinion and didn't > even spend a minute on thinking by himself how to find a solution) > * Oliver Endris, did some tests and afterwards denied the merge > because he found a bug which got resolved right after he reported it. > > There were a few options, freeze the development of v4l-dvb merge in > that code and fix whatever someone thinks he has to fix; there are > many requirements covered within that code and all you guys did is to > ignore it and nothing else.. Manu came up with something and didn't > even talk to me about it if it would be ok with the work I've done and > guess what he didn't even cover all the requirements which are already > solved. > > Now, all the other developers are far away from such a misbehaviour. > > > > It's now about 14.000 lines of code, around 7000 inkernel lines, and I > > > haven't received _any_ participation request of any developer and all > > > you get if you ask people to join the project is that they are busy > > > with their work (which is ok) but then don't try to manipulate someone > > > el
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/11/07, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:18:35PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > Remember all that code could have been in the kernel for around 1 year > > without breaking any device if these few core people (and there are > > really only very few ones <5) wouldn't have tried to hit it down. > > This "the bad linuxtv guys blocked my drivers for years" > allegation is unsubstancial as I tried to show in > http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2007-June/018853.html > "A few people offered to help you" is the same as: A few people (especially the ones which are mentioned later) partly don't have a good overview about everything, and/or neither do they care about several requirements which are needed to get something work properly. And these cool people would just work on the core and tell me that I have to redo the code by myself and put all the work back to me just because they're incapable of working together at all ... and hey we had exactly the same situation 1 year ago and the only one who seriously tried to get forward was Mauro. A few people like to hide themself between their great DVB Code and try to play the masters here which is not acceptable. How comes that Manu tells me that he won't ask Mauro that he should push any of his code? Great community. > IMHO it is your inability to make compromises and work with > the community which blocked the merge. Issues don't just > magically resolve all by themselves if you just wait long enough. > Your attempts to force the merge with flames and ultimatums > (yes, plural) failed. Surprise, surprise... > > > I'm sure the project would go on way faster if everyone who has never > > investigated the dvb core project and who has no experience with that > > piece of code (and writing a dvb driver doesn't shed much light about > > the dvb framework) would just stay out of everything. > > You think you're the only competent programmer, and everyone > who dares to have different opinions just gets in the > way and holds you up? Check this out: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnostic_criteria > For example you (first trying to help, afterwards doing nothing), * Manu Abraham (who has his project split from the maintree for a very long time too), * Marcel Siegert (who listens to other people's opinion and didn't even spend a minute on thinking by himself how to find a solution) * Oliver Endris, did some tests and afterwards denied the merge because he found a bug which got resolved right after he reported it. There were a few options, freeze the development of v4l-dvb merge in that code and fix whatever someone thinks he has to fix; there are many requirements covered within that code and all you guys did is to ignore it and nothing else.. Manu came up with something and didn't even talk to me about it if it would be ok with the work I've done and guess what he didn't even cover all the requirements which are already solved. Now, all the other developers are far away from such a misbehaviour. > > It's now about 14.000 lines of code, around 7000 inkernel lines, and I > > haven't received _any_ participation request of any developer and all > > you get if you ask people to join the project is that they are busy > > with their work (which is ok) but then don't try to manipulate someone > > else's work in the end. > > Nothing is getting better here if linuxtv.org people don't work together. > > If I look at hg or git logs I get the impression that the > community still works. > as long as they don't cross the mind of people which are mentioned right above. But as you wrote earlier "guess what the issues are still unsovled". -Markus > > Companies will for sure not like to rely on such a mess where finally > > a few wannabes try to play the smart guys and are responsible that > > support for alot devices won't get into the kernel. > > ... > > > Johannes > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 05:18:35PM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > Remember all that code could have been in the kernel for around 1 year > without breaking any device if these few core people (and there are > really only very few ones <5) wouldn't have tried to hit it down. This "the bad linuxtv guys blocked my drivers for years" allegation is unsubstancial as I tried to show in http://www.linuxtv.org/pipermail/linux-dvb/2007-June/018853.html IMHO it is your inability to make compromises and work with the community which blocked the merge. Issues don't just magically resolve all by themselves if you just wait long enough. Your attempts to force the merge with flames and ultimatums (yes, plural) failed. Surprise, surprise... > I'm sure the project would go on way faster if everyone who has never > investigated the dvb core project and who has no experience with that > piece of code (and writing a dvb driver doesn't shed much light about > the dvb framework) would just stay out of everything. You think you're the only competent programmer, and everyone who dares to have different opinions just gets in the way and holds you up? Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnostic_criteria > It's now about 14.000 lines of code, around 7000 inkernel lines, and I > haven't received _any_ participation request of any developer and all > you get if you ask people to join the project is that they are busy > with their work (which is ok) but then don't try to manipulate someone > else's work in the end. > Nothing is getting better here if linuxtv.org people don't work together. If I look at hg or git logs I get the impression that the community still works. > Companies will for sure not like to rely on such a mess where finally > a few wannabes try to play the smart guys and are responsible that > support for alot devices won't get into the kernel. ... Johannes ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/11/07, Alasdair Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/07/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would appreciate if you could stop spamming the em28xx ML since I > > prefer to use it for relevant issues; Currently there are around 200 > > people registered most of them aren't interested in internal linuxtv > > issues. > > As an outsider to this discussion - but nonetheless an interested > party - I find this sort of approach really dispiriting. Do I have to > point out that you yourself have been CC'ing the em28xx ML right up > until this very last post? > > Accusing anybody of "spamming" on a subject this important to all > parties - the licensing - serves very little purpose whatsoever, other > than inflaming emotions, and nobody wishes for that. > > as a postscript.. right that was my fault, sorry. > On 2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's > > too easy to look over the code change a few lines and obfuscure my > > work, remove the copyright and that's what I'm concerned about. I > > wouldn't mind about it if it wouldn't happen with that linuxtv > > community. > > You can't pick and choose who receives their rights under the GPL and > who doesn't (surely this is one of the benefits!), you just have to > live with it. > Well I don't close the development because of all that it just goes another path around linuxtv.org. In general it's no big deal anymore with the existing code since I already put it into userspace. It will be an issue with newer drivers which I do not intend to share with a group of people who are unable to discuss technical issues and just try to cut everyone down. Remember all that code could have been in the kernel for around 1 year without breaking any device if these few core people (and there are really only very few ones <5) wouldn't have tried to hit it down. I'm sure the project would go on way faster if everyone who has never investigated the dvb core project and who has no experience with that piece of code (and writing a dvb driver doesn't shed much light about the dvb framework) would just stay out of everything. It's now about 14.000 lines of code, around 7000 inkernel lines, and I haven't received _any_ participation request of any developer and all you get if you ask people to join the project is that they are busy with their work (which is ok) but then don't try to manipulate someone else's work in the end. Nothing is getting better here if linuxtv.org people don't work together. Companies will for sure not like to rely on such a mess where finally a few wannabes try to play the smart guys and are responsible that support for alot devices won't get into the kernel. Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 11/07/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would appreciate if you could stop spamming the em28xx ML since I > prefer to use it for relevant issues; Currently there are around 200 > people registered most of them aren't interested in internal linuxtv > issues. As an outsider to this discussion - but nonetheless an interested party - I find this sort of approach really dispiriting. Do I have to point out that you yourself have been CC'ing the em28xx ML right up until this very last post? Accusing anybody of "spamming" on a subject this important to all parties - the licensing - serves very little purpose whatsoever, other than inflaming emotions, and nobody wishes for that. as a postscript.. On 2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's > too easy to look over the code change a few lines and obfuscure my > work, remove the copyright and that's what I'm concerned about. I > wouldn't mind about it if it wouldn't happen with that linuxtv > community. You can't pick and choose who receives their rights under the GPL and who doesn't (surely this is one of the benefits!), you just have to live with it. ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/11/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > forwarded to linuxdvb as i used my private not the list account :/ One more reason why this list should have reply-to set to linux-dvb, its a total pain in the ass to reply to all and then cut linux-dvb email from CC into To: and remove everyone else from there. Spam, spam. -tc ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
forwarded to linuxdvb as i used my private not the list account :/ On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > I would appreciate if you could stop spamming the em28xx ML since I > prefer to use it for relevant issues; Currently there are around 200 > people registered most of them aren't interested in internal linuxtv > issues. > > Try to resolve all existing relevant problems first (since there are a > few other problems out there within the linuxtv "core developer(s)" > community) > > -Markus > hey markus, please calm down again. YOU sended an email to linux-dvb ml including a cc to your very own em28xx ml. it is normal to REPLY TO ALL if someone answers this. dont claim johannes to spam the em28xx ml, as this is a discussion that again shows how non-cooperative _you_ are, you may just want not your users to know it! regards marcel ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
I would appreciate if you could stop spamming the em28xx ML since I prefer to use it for relevant issues; Currently there are around 200 people registered most of them aren't interested in internal linuxtv issues. Try to resolve all existing relevant problems first (since there are a few other problems out there within the linuxtv "core developer(s)" community) -Markus On 7/11/07, Johannes Stezenbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > On 7/10/07, Trent Piepho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > > > > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > > > > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > > > > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's > > > > > > It's funny you should say this, since 99% of the code you are > distributing > > > came from linuxtv in the first place! > > > > Trent, I believe you're smart enough to see the problem behind > > everything .. the license stuff is the smallest part of everything; > > I don't steal and obfuscate code and remove the copyrights. > > And I for sure will not tell anyone how he has to do his work after a > > discussion where I didn't seriously participate. > > The code as it is will get removed sooner or later and replaced with a > > smaller package which only contains the necessary drivers. > > > > I wonder what you try to gain by bothering about the license there all > > you can win is the removal of the code there and the release of the > > replacement of the around 80% finished reworked code. So please stay > > serious and better try to fix the community problems that something > > like that won't happen again. > > I wonder what you mean by "I don't want my work to be stolen by > linuxtv people"? > > You had your code up for download on linuxtv.org and then on mcentral.de > for months, and you asked lots of people to download and test it, which > IMHO clearly is "distribution under the GPL". > > So everyone who downloaded it has every right granted by the GPL > to modify and redistribute your code under the GPL, which implies > it could be merged it into the main linuxtv.org tree and eventually > the kernel. Of course it doesn't make sense to merge unsupported code > (which even has known issues wich need to be resolved first), however if > someone would adopt it I see no (legal) reason for not merging it. > > Maybe you don't like this to happen, but IMHO all the > people who downloaded and tested your code, and contributed > back in form of bug reports, hardware information, patches etc. > wouldn't have done so if they had known that your code would > not be merged into the mainline kernel. Some people might even > have bought hardware after they read though your Wiki pages, > under the impression that it was well supported by Linux. > > Of course you are free to do whatever you like with the > code written by you, but everyone else is free to do > what the GPL permits them with the code distributed by > you under the GPL. > > > Johannes > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 7/10/07, Trent Piepho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > > > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > > > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > > > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's > > > > It's funny you should say this, since 99% of the code you are distributing > > came from linuxtv in the first place! > > Trent, I believe you're smart enough to see the problem behind > everything .. the license stuff is the smallest part of everything; > I don't steal and obfuscate code and remove the copyrights. > And I for sure will not tell anyone how he has to do his work after a > discussion where I didn't seriously participate. > The code as it is will get removed sooner or later and replaced with a > smaller package which only contains the necessary drivers. > > I wonder what you try to gain by bothering about the license there all > you can win is the removal of the code there and the release of the > replacement of the around 80% finished reworked code. So please stay > serious and better try to fix the community problems that something > like that won't happen again. I wonder what you mean by "I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people"? You had your code up for download on linuxtv.org and then on mcentral.de for months, and you asked lots of people to download and test it, which IMHO clearly is "distribution under the GPL". So everyone who downloaded it has every right granted by the GPL to modify and redistribute your code under the GPL, which implies it could be merged it into the main linuxtv.org tree and eventually the kernel. Of course it doesn't make sense to merge unsupported code (which even has known issues wich need to be resolved first), however if someone would adopt it I see no (legal) reason for not merging it. Maybe you don't like this to happen, but IMHO all the people who downloaded and tested your code, and contributed back in form of bug reports, hardware information, patches etc. wouldn't have done so if they had known that your code would not be merged into the mainline kernel. Some people might even have bought hardware after they read though your Wiki pages, under the impression that it was well supported by Linux. Of course you are free to do whatever you like with the code written by you, but everyone else is free to do what the GPL permits them with the code distributed by you under the GPL. Johannes ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Trent Piepho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's > > It's funny you should say this, since 99% of the code you are distributing > came from linuxtv in the first place! > Trent, I believe you're smart enough to see the problem behind everything .. the license stuff is the smallest part of everything; I don't steal and obfuscate code and remove the copyrights. And I for sure will not tell anyone how he has to do his work after a discussion where I didn't seriously participate. The code as it is will get removed sooner or later and replaced with a smaller package which only contains the necessary drivers. I wonder what you try to gain by bothering about the license there all you can win is the removal of the code there and the release of the replacement of the around 80% finished reworked code. So please stay serious and better try to fix the community problems that something like that won't happen again. Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update > it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it > won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. > I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's It's funny you should say this, since 99% of the code you are distributing came from linuxtv in the first place! ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Christoph Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. > > Maybe you should read what a derivative work is? And be aware that I > didn't only mean linuxtv, but also all kernel functions you use. > > > Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > You can do a lot (because you have server access) - but not everything is > legal. > > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. > > That are your personal issues. I doubt that you're 100% innocent and > if you think that you'll have more success that way, do it that way. > No but who came up with code and patches? and that's the only relevant part of everything in the end. And I worked alot with many people back then too. > Back to the MPL: After taking a closer look i had to *ROFL* (and I > think any lawyer will too) about _how_ you want to pseudo-put your > code under the MPL. Maybe you should read the license and see what > formal conditions have to be met? I dunno how you want to enforce > _anybody_ to treat your code as non-GPL'ed. Stop that MPL discussion, I can put that code offline too and update it with some probably nonfunctional code for several devices but it won't help anyone in the end - so I won't do it. I don't want my work to be stolen by linuxtv people in the end. It's too easy to look over the code change a few lines and obfuscure my work, remove the copyright and that's what I'm concerned about. I wouldn't mind about it if it wouldn't happen with that linuxtv community. -Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
2007/7/10, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Maybe you should read what a derivative work is? And be aware that I didn't only mean linuxtv, but also all kernel functions you use. > Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > and fact is that the code is still available. > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. You can do a lot (because you have server access) - but not everything is legal. > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. That are your personal issues. I doubt that you're 100% innocent and if you think that you'll have more success that way, do it that way. Back to the MPL: After taking a closer look i had to *ROFL* (and I think any lawyer will too) about _how_ you want to pseudo-put your code under the MPL. Maybe you should read the license and see what formal conditions have to be met? I dunno how you want to enforce _anybody_ to treat your code as non-GPL'ed. > thanks, > Markus Anyway, I don't have any personal interest in this issue (now I gave my $0.02) so I won't spend any further second on it (hint: my wastemail bin is big). Christoph ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 20:55 +0900, timecop wrote: > I noticed one thing, Damn guys, you (all) really need to learn how to quote.. You have lost me completely. Not only because you all sound like a bunch of fish wifes fresh out overdue herrings, but also because it's unclear who you are quoting. I have noticed one thing also. The discussion looks like one that should be held in private between the concerned parties and not on these lists. I'm reading way to much ego and not enough willingness to work together to achieve (what should be) a common goal. Kind regards, -- Greg Tee CISSP, Manager Engineering & Support BIT B.V.| http://www.bit.nl/ Internet Technology | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Le mardi 10 juillet 2007 13:17, Markus Rechberger a écrit : > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, > people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code > which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. I will also "just shut up", but first I would suggest that you leave this ml, so you won't be annoyed any more by "useless discussions". -- Christophe Thommeret ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Aidan Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In > particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing > individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a > non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined > with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. > Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me > want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always > fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new > kernel releases would be a real pain. > > (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and > xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb > from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know > that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > Yes you had some code in there, just that you know some linuxtv people (I don't want to name them here) wrote that the em2880-dvb module is just wrong because of what you did. Since I know about the DVB framework now I have to say that these people who claimed that it's wrong have had no idea about the framework back then and that it was fine what you did. It is not you who went through such discussions, since I managed the code I received these comments and instead that these people sent some patches they just claimed that it was bad and wrong. This community needs a change if it wants to survive and get companies onto the boat, right now it's controlled by a few wannabes who missleaded me in history but who never sent any patches against the repository either to improve the parts which were in question. > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux > driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except > perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to > be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). > hmm? if it's related to the code on mcentral.de please post a bugreport or feature request; maybe make kernel-links is what you're looking for, please give me some more details about this. thanks, Markus > PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Aidan Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I noticed one thing, You sure seem to have plenty of time to argue about utterly irrelevant shit. But you couldn't spare 5 minutes of your life to agree on accepting this code a year ago. I think this is purely your loss at this point, just eat it up, shut up, stop playing lawyers, and get back to coding (or whatever you do). -tc > On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > > and fact is that the code is still available. > > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. > > I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In > particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing > individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a > non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined > with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. > Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me > want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always > fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new > kernel releases would be a real pain. > > (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and > xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb > from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know > that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > > > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > > endresult. > > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > > merging requests are responsible for that. > > Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux > driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except > perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to > be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). > > PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. > > ___ > linux-dvb mailing list > linux-dvb@linuxtv.org > http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb > ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Markus Rechberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is > derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also > people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it > and fact is that the code is still available. > Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. > I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. I suspect there are all sorts of interesting legal issues here. In particular, the GPL is intended to cover entire works - relicensing individual source files in a GPLed piece of software in a non-GPL-compatible way when those files are intended to be combined with other source files which are still GPLed is a grey area at best. Since I'm not a lawyer, and I can't afford to hire one, this makes me want to not touch this code with a bargepole. I suppose I could always fork the GPL-licensed version, but getting it to compile with new kernel releases would be a real pain. (Incidentally, I assume that, since you say that "em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code", you rewrote em2880-dvb from scratch at some point. It certainly looks that way, but I know that I did have some code in em2880-dvb at one point.) > I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few > linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable > of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get > forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the > endresult. > Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the > merging requests are responsible for that. Basically, I'm left without a working, maintained, legally sound Linux driver for the hardware I'm using, through no fault of my own (except perhaps relying on an out-of-tree driver by someone who turns out to be unable to co-operate with the v4l and dvb developers). PS. Sorry for the semi-duplicate email; accidentally forgot to send to list. ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Christoph Pfister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2007 12:08 schrieb Markus Rechberger: > > On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is > > > > > > of course GPL. > > > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to > > > > > > that step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. > > > > > > It's out of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged > > > > > into the kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases > > > > > on GPL sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the > > > > > MPL is not GPL compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively > > > > > under the MPL and at the same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb > > > > > maincode as a base, you are violating the GPL. > > > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good > > > > > insight, for example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Jakob > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > > > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > > > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > > > > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to > > > MPL? > > > > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply > > none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and > > Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv > > project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). > > > > I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very > > few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads > > forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further > > delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel > > lucky. > > > > So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not > > intended to get compiled; > > In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit > > bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the > > em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of > > time) > > > > thanks, > > Markus > > Nice try, but I highly doubt that it'll work out. Your code is a derived work > of GPL'ed code (even using tricks like glue code doesn't help _per se_; not > to be derived work would mean that the code can reasonably work without using > any GPL-only bits ...). > So you can't prevent the copyright holders of the GPL'ed code you're using > from enforcing the license (except if they did some dual-licensing or gave > you explicit permission allowing you to use their code in this way). > em2880-dvb and xc3028-tuner are not derived from v4l code; em28xx is derived from GPL code but worthless without the other files. Also people can write whatever they want as long as they don't compile it and fact is that the code is still available. Don't compile it against v4l-dvb and it's fine.. I can have whatever sourcecode I want to have on that server. I'd appreciate if you could stop having useless discussions, a few linuxtv people proved it during the last year that they aren't capable of participating from the beginning on or helping at all to get forward, so I'd appreciate if you could just shut up and wait for the endresult. Not everyone might know why I did that, people who participated at the merging requests are responsible for that. Most people are welcome to participate at the latest work I have, people who participated at recent discussions about getting the code which now is in question merged are not welcome anymore. thanks, Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
Am Dienstag, 10. Juli 2007 12:08 schrieb Markus Rechberger: > On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is > > > > > of course GPL. > > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to > > > > > that step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. > > > > > It's out of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged > > > > into the kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases > > > > on GPL sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the > > > > MPL is not GPL compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively > > > > under the MPL and at the same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb > > > > maincode as a base, you are violating the GPL. > > > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good > > > > insight, for example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jakob > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to > > MPL? > > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply > none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and > Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv > project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). > > I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very > few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads > forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further > delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel > lucky. > > So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not > intended to get compiled; > In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit > bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the > em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of > time) > > thanks, > Markus Nice try, but I highly doubt that it'll work out. Your code is a derived work of GPL'ed code (even using tricks like glue code doesn't help _per se_; not to be derived work would mean that the code can reasonably work without using any GPL-only bits ...). So you can't prevent the copyright holders of the GPL'ed code you're using from enforcing the license (except if they did some dual-licensing or gave you explicit permission allowing you to use their code in this way). Christoph ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Marcel Siegert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > > > course GPL. > > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > > > kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > > > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > > > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at > > > the > > > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are > > > violating > > > the GPL. > > > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, > > > for > > > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at > > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > > > Regards, > > > Jakob > > > > > > ___ > > > Em28xx mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, > if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS > also GPL automatically, isn't it? > > and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to MPL? > Marcel, sorry this code is out of the scope of linuxtv, it's simply none of your business; A solution has been discussed with Linus and Mauro already. I do not want that my code gets reused by the linuxtv project without my authority (eg preventing code stealing). I'd appreciate if that thread can discontinue at that part, the very few active linuxtv developers who participated at the merging threads forced me to go another way since I'm not interested in further delays, you guys already delayed it for more than 1 year.. so feel lucky. So in case of the few linuxtv devs I would say the code is not intended to get compiled; In case of endusers I'd say take the code use and test it and submit bugreports if there are any, I'm try to answer all the mails on the em28xx ML (only very few might be delayed for a certain amount of time) thanks, Markus ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On Tuesday 10 July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > > course GPL. > > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > > kernel if it isn't GPL? > > > > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > > > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at the > > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are violating > > the GPL. > > > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, for > > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > > > Regards, > > Jakob > > > > ___ > > Em28xx mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > > > > at least for my understanding, markus, please explain to me that, if you use v4l/dvb core functions that are licensed GPL, your code IS also GPL automatically, isn't it? and, as you told before, why is there a need to intermediate license to MPL? regards marcel ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
Re: [linux-dvb] [Em28xx] MPL-licensed V4L kernel modules (em2880)
On 7/10/07, Jakob Petsovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday, 7. July 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote: > > only my new sources are MPL licensed there; the v4l-dvb maincode is of > > course GPL. > > Even though it doesn't matter anymore the people who lead me to that > > step know how the code will get merged into the kernel now. It's out > > of the scope of linuxtv.org due useless delaying all that work. > > Er, excuse my baffledness, but how do you plan to get code merged into the > kernel if it isn't GPL? > there's nothing to worry about, the modified target code is GPL again. > Also, mind that the GPL being viral means that any code which bases on GPL > sources must be GPL (or GPL compatible) as well. Afaik, the MPL is not GPL > compatible, so if you put your new code exclusively under the MPL and at the > same time use the GPL-licensed v4l-dvb maincode as a base, you are violating > the GPL. > > I am not a lawyer, of course. Please consult someone with good insight, for > example, the Software Freedom Law Center at http://www.softwarefreedom.org/ > > Regards, > Jakob > > ___ > Em28xx mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mcentral.de/mailman/listinfo/em28xx > -- Markus Rechberger ___ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@linuxtv.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
