Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM wrote: > ... pompous programmer asshole*. I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some degree). That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from now on. Have fun, -- Raul
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a > > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If > > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering > > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together" > > is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to > > "create a robot short story". Such a story could go into an > > anthology called (duh) "Robot Short Stories", but its > > licensing is independent of every other robot short story in > > the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:44:10AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this > way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without > permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative > work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile > my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a > derivative work. It's quite true that linking does not create a derivative work. However, it might be the case that a derivative work had already been created. Only when you have legally obtained copies of a work are you entitled to retain those copies. Technical details (such as downloading the work in pieces, from different sites, perhaps using bittorrent, or perhaps using ftp, or perhaps using other protocols) don't make any more difference [either positively or negatively] than linking does. > Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that > you can do all the things you want to do without permission from > the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a > derivative work, no special permission is needed. Sure. Of course this doesn't apply when you got the copy from someone who wasn't entitled to give it to you. For example, if I'm distributing some program derived from a GPLed program and I have no intention of providing source for the derived form, I'm at fault, and depending on details you might or might not have a license to the derivative I authored. On the other hand, the GPL itself has an explicit exception for this case, the GPLed content is legal for other people to use even if the person distributing it had lost their copyright grant. But if we're talking about linking and derived works, you could easily be using derived code which is not GPLed. The GPL can't offer you any rights to that code, because someone else owns the copyright. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together is not protected by copyright: the literary analogy was to create a robot short story. Such a story could go into an anthology called (duh) Robot Short Stories, but its licensing is independent of every other robot short story in the world -- except those it is a derivative work of. On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:44:10AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: That's fine then, if you want to define derivative work in this way, then I can configure, compile, and link the Linux kernel without permission of the copyright holder under first sale (since no derivative work is created). I can write a program that uses a library, compile my program, and link it to the library, again without creating a derivative work. It's quite true that linking does not create a derivative work. However, it might be the case that a derivative work had already been created. Only when you have legally obtained copies of a work are you entitled to retain those copies. Technical details (such as downloading the work in pieces, from different sites, perhaps using bittorrent, or perhaps using ftp, or perhaps using other protocols) don't make any more difference [either positively or negatively] than linking does. Okay. This gets to the same result that I get to, which is that you can do all the things you want to do without permission from the copyright holder under first sale. Since this is not creating a derivative work, no special permission is needed. Sure. Of course this doesn't apply when you got the copy from someone who wasn't entitled to give it to you. For example, if I'm distributing some program derived from a GPLed program and I have no intention of providing source for the derived form, I'm at fault, and depending on details you might or might not have a license to the derivative I authored. On the other hand, the GPL itself has an explicit exception for this case, the GPLed content is legal for other people to use even if the person distributing it had lost their copyright grant. But if we're talking about linking and derived works, you could easily be using derived code which is not GPLed. The GPL can't offer you any rights to that code, because someone else owns the copyright. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > What compels you to agree with an EULA? On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire > lawful possession of the work. What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed to see the EULA? -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, > which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no > contract, no exceptions. False. For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by exercising the rights it grants. Furthermore, the converse is also false: it's quite possible to install software on your machine without clicking on the click-through license. For example, someone else might install it for you. [You expect my dad to figure out how to install anything?] -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no contract, no exceptions. False. For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by exercising the rights it grants. Furthermore, the converse is also false: it's quite possible to install software on your machine without clicking on the click-through license. For example, someone else might install it for you. [You expect my dad to figure out how to install anything?] -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
What compels you to agree with an EULA? On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire lawful possession of the work. What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed to see the EULA? -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the > agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before > purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine cites several cases, and has a very nice writeup on the current status of this issue. In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, admitting in court agreement with the license). Does this thread have anything to do with the linux kernel at this point? -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A > EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? > In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and > click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, > this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give > you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain conditions. You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do not gain no rights from the GPL. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses > a library creates a derivative work of that library? No, I would not. Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not creative. The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues for the unlinked program. Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's a practical issue, not a copyright issue. > And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you > have legally acquired? The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that. > There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without > explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you > lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and > you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary > fashion. I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean. I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you. "... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ... prepare derivative works ...". Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean something different. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership > of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of > Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, > you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you > were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want > to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, under 17 USC 106). With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed under copyright. It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise, you could not sell a machine with the Windows OS installed unless you were a Microsoft OEM. Does Microsoft take the position that if you want to sell your PC, you must wipe the OS? Not that I know of. [1] I think you've confused Microsoft's Original Equipment Manufacturer License with Microsoft's End User License Agreement. [2] The grounds for Microsoft's EULA are much weaker than the grounds for the GPL restrctions on the production of derivative works. At least with the GPL, you're getting something you didn't already have (rights restricted to the copyright holder -- for example, in the states, under 17 USC 106). With Microsoft's EULA, it's not clear that you're getting anything in exchange for complying with the copyright -- at least not in the U.S. which is where Microsoft is based. You already have a number of rights (17 USC 107, 17 USC 117), and while the DMCA has put into law that you can't bypass copyright protection (17 USC 1201), it seems to allow bypassing technological defects which would prevent actions allowed under copyright. It's probably worth noting that legal actions based on Microsoft's EULA are settled out of court -- Microsoft has a history putting a lot of direct and indirect pressure on people charged with violating the agreement and, in the rare case where someone has stood up to the pressure, of cutting their losses and settling out of court. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses a library creates a derivative work of that library? No, I would not. Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not creative. The copyright issues for the linked program are the copyright issues for the unlinked program. Of course, you might have evidence in the form of a linked program where you don't have evidence in the form of an unlinked program. But that's a practical issue, not a copyright issue. And doesn't first sale give you the right to normal use of a work you have legally acquired? The first sale doctrine (basically, 17 USC 109) doesn't really say that. There are many ways you can lawfully create a derivative work without explicit permission of the copyright holder. One clear case is when you lawfully possess the work, there is no EULA or shrink-wrap agreement, and you need to produce a derivative work to use the work in the ordinary fashion. I don't think the words you're using mean what you think they mean. I'm just going to quote part of 17 USC 106 at you. ... the owner of copyright ... has the exclusive rights to ... prepare derivative works Go look it up yourself if you think the text I've omitted makes it mean something different. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have. What compels you to agree with an EULA? In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-wrap and click-wrap type agreements, I've seen them consistently upheld. However, this is not relevent to the GPL issue at all because the GPL can only give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have, it cannot take away any rights. The GPL offers you certain rights if you agree to be bound by certain conditions. You are not compelled to agree to those conditions, but those who do not gain no rights from the GPL. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement. http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine cites several cases, and has a very nice writeup on the current status of this issue. In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) is that the presence of a click-through is the determining factor. Of course, it could just as easily be something else (for example, admitting in court agreement with the license). Does this thread have anything to do with the linux kernel at this point? -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of > bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware > either. This point is a controversial point. Different people make different claims. For example, http://www.answers.com/software -- the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia asserts that you are correct, while Wikipedia asserts that you are incorrect. The American Heritage Dictionary implies you are correct, and WordNet implies that you're incorrect. Usage is still evolving, so who knows where this issue will stand in five years. In the context of the linux kernel (which I presume you're talking about, given the message headers), I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the occasional use of the term "software" in the license means that the stuff under Documentation/ isn't covered by the license. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright > holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can > cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* > mention distribution of derivative works. 17 USC 103 17 USC 106 -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you > could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there > is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you > to withhold from me. While you are may be reporting your thoughts accurately, this problem doesn't seem to be a legal issue. The GPL explicitly discusses this issue (section 5), and a number of people have already posted with similar commentary. Anyways, one thing to keep in mind here is that if copyright law doesn't allow the GPL's grant of permission to be conditional then copyright law would not allow other copyright grants to be conditional. Another way of looking at this is that the GPL is a copyright license -- it represents the terms and conditions under which copyrights are granted, and it also represents those permissions. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from me. While you are may be reporting your thoughts accurately, this problem doesn't seem to be a legal issue. The GPL explicitly discusses this issue (section 5), and a number of people have already posted with similar commentary. Anyways, one thing to keep in mind here is that if copyright law doesn't allow the GPL's grant of permission to be conditional then copyright law would not allow other copyright grants to be conditional. Another way of looking at this is that the GPL is a copyright license -- it represents the terms and conditions under which copyrights are granted, and it also represents those permissions. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't* mention distribution of derivative works. 17 USC 103 17 USC 106 -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware either. This point is a controversial point. Different people make different claims. For example, http://www.answers.com/software -- the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia asserts that you are correct, while Wikipedia asserts that you are incorrect. The American Heritage Dictionary implies you are correct, and WordNet implies that you're incorrect. Usage is still evolving, so who knows where this issue will stand in five years. In the context of the linux kernel (which I presume you're talking about, given the message headers), I don't think it's plausible to suggest that the occasional use of the term software in the license means that the stuff under Documentation/ isn't covered by the license. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently. On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered > the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support. It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one dimensional quantity. It could easily be that Red Hat decided that the mp3 patent owners would be going after people with deep pockets. If this is the risk model, Red Hat's risk would be much much higher than Debian's. > Note that this is a respose to Josselin's statement: > < When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the < more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation, < but to a court. Sure, if you have several plausible interpretations, you pick the one you feel is likely to be the most important, and if all of them seem likely you pick the one that seems worst. But, ultimately, you can't treat software patents consistently. There's no reasonable way to do so. > It's simply silly to be extremely picky on copyright issues while being > extremely liberal on patent issues - the risk of a Debian distributor > being sued for patent violations (no matter how the lawsuit might end) > is definitely present. Anything to do with software patents is silly. Being liberal about software patents is silly. Being conservative about software patents is silly. Copyright, while far from perfect, can at least be reasoned about. > > As for this particular patent, I'm not really sure what's being patented. > >... > Which one of the 23 patents they list do you call "this particular > patent"? What makes you think I'm sure about what's being patented in 22 of those patents? I should probably have said "As for patent claims applying to mp3, ...", but the issue is thorny enough that even that might not have been accurate enough. But, treating "this particular patent" as a meta-syntactic variable should be adequate for you to understand what I was saying. Bottom line, though: softare patents generally make very little sense. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
It's impossible to treat patents consistently. On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support. It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one dimensional quantity. It could easily be that Red Hat decided that the mp3 patent owners would be going after people with deep pockets. If this is the risk model, Red Hat's risk would be much much higher than Debian's. Note that this is a respose to Josselin's statement: When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation, but to a court. Sure, if you have several plausible interpretations, you pick the one you feel is likely to be the most important, and if all of them seem likely you pick the one that seems worst. But, ultimately, you can't treat software patents consistently. There's no reasonable way to do so. It's simply silly to be extremely picky on copyright issues while being extremely liberal on patent issues - the risk of a Debian distributor being sued for patent violations (no matter how the lawsuit might end) is definitely present. Anything to do with software patents is silly. Being liberal about software patents is silly. Being conservative about software patents is silly. Copyright, while far from perfect, can at least be reasoned about. As for this particular patent, I'm not really sure what's being patented. ... Which one of the 23 patents they list do you call this particular patent? What makes you think I'm sure about what's being patented in 22 of those patents? I should probably have said As for patent claims applying to mp3, ..., but the issue is thorny enough that even that might not have been accurate enough. But, treating this particular patent as a meta-syntactic variable should be adequate for you to understand what I was saying. Bottom line, though: softare patents generally make very little sense. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > If Debian was at least consistent. > > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues > than RedHat? It's impossible to treat patents consistently. The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws, on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on trivial math operations and so on. Patents are being granted so quickly there's no way of even knowing what's patented. Or were you hoping that Debian would follow Red Hat's lead? As for this particular patent, I'm not really sure what's being patented. Trial and error? Spectral quantization? The specific data format? Addition, multiplication, and exponentiation? In many respects, mp3 is similar to jpeg. Does that mean that any use of the techniques used by jpeg in the domain of audio is covered by this patent? Does that mean that jpeg is in violation of this patent? If I use the same kind of math with a time dimension, am I violating some other mpeg patents? What about the other hundreds of thousands of patents? How many of them am I violating when I use lossy compression based on spectral quantization? -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted > in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can > be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel. I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my opinions, after reading it: [1a] It's pretty long, and some of the redundancy is not really relevant to the issue at hand. This might be less of an issue, except [1b] It has some grammar problems that should be fixed. [2] The presented arguments all look plausible. Maybe I should study it more, but I didn't see any significant logical flaws. [3] It focuses on debian issues more than kernel issues (though a dedicated reader could see some issues relevant to the linux-kernel mailing list). I agree with both you and the gpl faq writers that "communicates at arms length" is probably a good measure of whether or not the kernel and the module are the same program. I can think of cases where this wouldn't hold (GPLed documentation, for example), but those kinds of issues don't seem to be relevant here. > I further argumented that taking any different stance would bring us worlds of > hurt as we would consider the bios as being a derivative work of the kernel > they are running, or the bootloader, or the firmware present in proms on > devices loaded into the system and so on. Here, you've confused two issues: "Are A and B part of the same program?" and "Are A and B together part of a derivative work under copyright law?" Sometimes one is true, sometimes the other is true. You have a GPL issue when both are true. One question has to do with the function of A and B. The other question is whether the combination is eligible for copyright protection. Copyright protection is not granted or denied because of functionality. The functional issues are relevant only because they're written into the license. Of course there can be other GPL issues (e.g. it's bad to put a GPL notice on something which isn't GPLed). And, of course, there can be non-GPL issues (pulling the blobs out of the kernel lets people update their firmware without having to compile the kernel or a kernel module). > I think only the fact that if you consider firmware as being a derivative > work, you should consider it a derivative work also when it is flashed on the > prom of a pci card or what not, is decisive enough to make those firmware > blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under. Uh... not precisely. You have your facts straight, but your logic is bad. This fact alone isn't enough to decide whether or not firmware is a derivative work. Fortunately this thought isn't a big deal for the cases we're currently talking about. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel. I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my opinions, after reading it: [1a] It's pretty long, and some of the redundancy is not really relevant to the issue at hand. This might be less of an issue, except [1b] It has some grammar problems that should be fixed. [2] The presented arguments all look plausible. Maybe I should study it more, but I didn't see any significant logical flaws. [3] It focuses on debian issues more than kernel issues (though a dedicated reader could see some issues relevant to the linux-kernel mailing list). I agree with both you and the gpl faq writers that communicates at arms length is probably a good measure of whether or not the kernel and the module are the same program. I can think of cases where this wouldn't hold (GPLed documentation, for example), but those kinds of issues don't seem to be relevant here. I further argumented that taking any different stance would bring us worlds of hurt as we would consider the bios as being a derivative work of the kernel they are running, or the bootloader, or the firmware present in proms on devices loaded into the system and so on. Here, you've confused two issues: Are A and B part of the same program? and Are A and B together part of a derivative work under copyright law? Sometimes one is true, sometimes the other is true. You have a GPL issue when both are true. One question has to do with the function of A and B. The other question is whether the combination is eligible for copyright protection. Copyright protection is not granted or denied because of functionality. The functional issues are relevant only because they're written into the license. Of course there can be other GPL issues (e.g. it's bad to put a GPL notice on something which isn't GPLed). And, of course, there can be non-GPL issues (pulling the blobs out of the kernel lets people update their firmware without having to compile the kernel or a kernel module). I think only the fact that if you consider firmware as being a derivative work, you should consider it a derivative work also when it is flashed on the prom of a pci card or what not, is decisive enough to make those firmware blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under. Uh... not precisely. You have your facts straight, but your logic is bad. This fact alone isn't enough to decide whether or not firmware is a derivative work. Fortunately this thought isn't a big deal for the cases we're currently talking about. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source > file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice. Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have already decided that this is an issue that needs to be fixed. And, I think most of the approach for fixing these is fairly clear. That said... perhaps it's worth going over a hierarchy of copyright issues: First, there's the issue of whether or not work is protected by copyright. I think we're talking about stuff that's protected by copyright. If it is protected by copyright, there's the question of whether the things being done with that work are regulated by copyright law. I think we're talking about activities (making copies of linux and distributing it) which are regulated by copyright law. If both hold, the next question is whether or not the copyright license allows this use. As you've indicated, we do have some real issues here. Finally, if you're dealing with regulated activity and the license doesn't allow it, it's up to the copyright holder to decide whether or not to prosecute. So far, the copyright holders haven't said much about these issues. We probably have some issues where what we're doing is only by the good graces of the copyright holder(s). We should fix those things, of course, but currently there aren't any deadlines we have to meet. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what > > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make > > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't > > the program. On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > It's also there because the GPL can only apply to either works > placed under it by their authors and works that are legally classified > as derivative. If you merely aggregate two works, there is no > derivation. The GPL is making clear that it's not trying to exceed the > scope of its authority (which is copyright law). The issue of whether or not the combined work is a derivative under copyright law is a copyright law issue. The GPL does concern itself with that issue, but not in the "mere aggregation" clause. The "mere aggregation" clause holds regardless of whether or not the combined work is a derivative under copyright law. [P.S. I've set the Reply-To: header on this message because I think this thread has drifted away from kernel issues.] -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the > driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue > that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can > you separate the linked work into the two separate works and in both > cases the linker provides one work direct access to the other. You can indeed separate the firmware and the kernel into two separate works. That's what people have been proposing as the solution to this problem. Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't the program. Without that mere aggregation clause, people might be claiming that text on a disk has to be GPLed because of emacs, or that postscript files have to be GPLed because of ghostscript, or more generally that arbitrary object FOO has to be GPLed because of gpled program BAR. Put another way, what the linker does or doesn't do isn't really the issue. People like to think that the linker is somehow special for copyright, but it's not. Either the stuff being linked is protected by copyright even when it's not linked or it's not protected by copyright after it is linked. If the license says something about linking then that matters, but only for cases where the code was protected by copyright even before it was linked. And then linking only matters in the specific way that that license says it matters. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can you separate the linked work into the two separate works and in both cases the linker provides one work direct access to the other. You can indeed separate the firmware and the kernel into two separate works. That's what people have been proposing as the solution to this problem. Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't the program. Without that mere aggregation clause, people might be claiming that text on a disk has to be GPLed because of emacs, or that postscript files have to be GPLed because of ghostscript, or more generally that arbitrary object FOO has to be GPLed because of gpled program BAR. Put another way, what the linker does or doesn't do isn't really the issue. People like to think that the linker is somehow special for copyright, but it's not. Either the stuff being linked is protected by copyright even when it's not linked or it's not protected by copyright after it is linked. If the license says something about linking then that matters, but only for cases where the code was protected by copyright even before it was linked. And then linking only matters in the specific way that that license says it matters. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't the program. On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: It's also there because the GPL can only apply to either works placed under it by their authors and works that are legally classified as derivative. If you merely aggregate two works, there is no derivation. The GPL is making clear that it's not trying to exceed the scope of its authority (which is copyright law). The issue of whether or not the combined work is a derivative under copyright law is a copyright law issue. The GPL does concern itself with that issue, but not in the mere aggregation clause. The mere aggregation clause holds regardless of whether or not the combined work is a derivative under copyright law. [P.S. I've set the Reply-To: header on this message because I think this thread has drifted away from kernel issues.] -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice. Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have already decided that this is an issue that needs to be fixed. And, I think most of the approach for fixing these is fairly clear. That said... perhaps it's worth going over a hierarchy of copyright issues: First, there's the issue of whether or not work is protected by copyright. I think we're talking about stuff that's protected by copyright. If it is protected by copyright, there's the question of whether the things being done with that work are regulated by copyright law. I think we're talking about activities (making copies of linux and distributing it) which are regulated by copyright law. If both hold, the next question is whether or not the copyright license allows this use. As you've indicated, we do have some real issues here. Finally, if you're dealing with regulated activity and the license doesn't allow it, it's up to the copyright holder to decide whether or not to prosecute. So far, the copyright holders haven't said much about these issues. We probably have some issues where what we're doing is only by the good graces of the copyright holder(s). We should fix those things, of course, but currently there aren't any deadlines we have to meet. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
> 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. On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:00:32PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > Not really... As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to separate those > parts, at least as easy as it is to separate one story inside a book > that contains an anthology of short stories. And the latter is not > considered a derivative work, either. I'm not sure who it is that doesn't consider anthologies a derivative work. The u.s. copyright office considers anthologies and other compilations derivative works except when they involve insufficient creative work to grant them copyright protection. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf But it's probably not interesting to argue any further about the inner workings of copyright law. Pretty much everyone seems to agree on what the right approach is, here. The big issue seems to be stability of linux during the transition. The interesting topics, at this point, have to do with the details of migrating such drivers out of the kernel. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
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. On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:00:32PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: Not really... As a matter of fact, it's quite easy to separate those parts, at least as easy as it is to separate one story inside a book that contains an anthology of short stories. And the latter is not considered a derivative work, either. I'm not sure who it is that doesn't consider anthologies a derivative work. The u.s. copyright office considers anthologies and other compilations derivative works except when they involve insufficient creative work to grant them copyright protection. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf But it's probably not interesting to argue any further about the inner workings of copyright law. Pretty much everyone seems to agree on what the right approach is, here. The big issue seems to be stability of linux during the transition. The interesting topics, at this point, have to do with the details of migrating such drivers out of the kernel. -- Raul - 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 FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
guarantee_memory() syscall?
Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall? [I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc. Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer, unless it allocated further memory.] Thanks, -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
guarantee_memory() syscall?
Can anyone tell me about the viability of a guarantee_memory() syscall? [I'm thinking: it would either kill the process, or allocate all virtual memory needed for its shared libraries, buffers, allocated memory, etc. Furthermore, it would render this process immune to the OOM killer, unless it allocated further memory.] Thanks, -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: No Bug: accept discards socket options/O_NONBLOCK
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:01:32AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > Every Linux inetd in the world would instantly stop working. Pointer to docs on why this is not considered a bug in inetd? Also, you already know how to upgrade a syscall without breaking backwards compatability. > The behavior is not changing, lets end this thread right now. I'm not trying to say the behavior must change -- I'm trying to find out why it won't. ["I don't see the need", is something that I'd accept. However, "it would break inetd" doesn't make sense.] -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: No Bug: accept discards socket options/O_NONBLOCK
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 07:01:32AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: Every Linux inetd in the world would instantly stop working. Pointer to docs on why this is not considered a bug in inetd? Also, you already know how to upgrade a syscall without breaking backwards compatability. The behavior is not changing, lets end this thread right now. I'm not trying to say the behavior must change -- I'm trying to find out why it won't. ["I don't see the need", is something that I'd accept. However, "it would break inetd" doesn't make sense.] -- Raul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
