RE: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: > > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to > > warn people > > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, > Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that > says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were added after that lawsuit. Yes. And pretty much everyone agrees that these warnings serve no purpose. Everyone knows that hot coffee is served hot. What people probably don't know is that if you spill hot coffee on yourself and remain in contact with the coffee for more than about 45 seconds, a third-degree burn can result. This warning doesn't convey that information. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone is going to alter their behavior in any significant way as a result of that warning. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed > > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an > > infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to > > list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will > > get a price for it and no guarantees of success). > > And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having Probably if -) I actually found something and -) the patent holder also believes in it (and he will - IMHO very probably - pay another expert to verify the findings) and -) the patent holder actually persues the infringements and -) the law suit goes that far and. > legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. At least in .at you need some kind of "official approval" to become an "expert in court" (in German: "Gutachter" - Is "assessor" the correct translation? http://dict.leo.org/ lists 9 different words). Actually this is a somewhat different job Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having Probably if -) I actually found something and -) the patent holder also believes in it (and he will - IMHO very probably - pay another expert to verify the findings) and -) the patent holder actually persues the infringements and -) the law suit goes that far and. legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. At least in .at you need some kind of official approval to become an expert in court (in German: Gutachter - Is assessor the correct translation? http://dict.leo.org/ lists 9 different words). Actually this is a somewhat different job Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were added after that lawsuit. Yes. And pretty much everyone agrees that these warnings serve no purpose. Everyone knows that hot coffee is served hot. What people probably don't know is that if you spill hot coffee on yourself and remain in contact with the coffee for more than about 45 seconds, a third-degree burn can result. This warning doesn't convey that information. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone is going to alter their behavior in any significant way as a result of that warning. DS - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were added after that lawsuit. pgpsyjbrl64U8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said: > > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the 100F == 37C 125F == 52C 55C == 131F 70C == 158F Yes, 100F *is* ludicrously low for coffee. :) pgpzvU9q5Otdl.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. > 165-190F is the > > preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For > > example: > > http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html > > http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm > > Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the > SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. The conversion was incorrect. 70C is about 160F, and 55C is about 130F. As I said in the correction, every number is correct in the unit it was first posted in, and all the claims are correct. 160F is the mininum recommended serving temperature and 165-190F is the preferred range. 130F is a ludicrously low serving temperature for coffee. 180F seems to be about ideal. Stella Liebeck's lawyers argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140F. This is no different from arguing that knives should be dull. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the > preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For > example: > http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html > http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. -- Brian Beattie Firmware Engineer APCON, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it > she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued > McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether or not McDonald's was in any way negligent or serving a defective or unreasonably dangerous product? This case should never have gotten past the earliest stages, and numerous factually similar cases were properly dismissed. There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, and nobody can reasonably claim they didn't know coffee was served hot. People might not realize that coffee is hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but McDonald's can't include an education with each cup of coffee, and the plaintiff's never suggest what warning they think would have been appropriate. Any "failure to warn" type argument is absurd on its face. (Does anyone honestly think anything would change if McDonald's included some kind of notice on the cups?) There is similarly no way you can argue that the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature people want their coffee served, well within industry standards. Hot coffee is inherently dangerous, and asking McDonald's to make their coffee colder than industry standards just to make it less dangerous is to argue that stores should sell dull knives. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature consumers want it, within accepted standards, that makes any danger inherent in that temperature reasonable. There is no suggestion that the cups or lids are somehow unsuitable. Any "defective product" or "unreasonably dangerous" argument is absurd on its face. What type of legal claim does this leave? The claim that McDonald's settled "similar cases" and is thus being arbitrary or trying to hide anything is nonsense. McDonald's, and other coffee sellers, have settled cases where they *did* do something wrong, such as failing to properly close the lid or where an employee actually dropped or spilled the coffee on a customer. The Stella Liebeck case, however, is a textbook example of a jury finding for a plaintiff in a completely meritless case for no reason other than that the defendant had deep pockets and the plaintiff was badly hurt. That there is no plausible connection between anything the defendant did wrong and the plaintiff's injuries was totally ignored. That none of the plaintiff's claims had even one shred of legal merit was totally ignored. What really amazes me though is that people continue to try to find some way to justify this crazy case. That ATLA defends the case with a series of confusing "almost sort of true" statements is embarassing. DS PS: In my previous post I made a few temperature conversion errors between Farenheit and Celsius. All temperatures were correct in the first specified units and the errors didn't affect the reasoning. My apologies, and thanks to those who caught it. - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote: > Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have > this problem :-) > > [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption > and flame wars]. Yes, PLEEZE! --- ~Randy - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? We have a coffee chain down here (.au) called "92degrees". They claim this is the optimal temperature for pumping the water through the ground coffee beans to get ideal coffee. So it doesn't need to be boiling. Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. NeilBrown - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > >> > >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > >That's less than 90°C. > [1] > > >Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > >people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend > arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an > experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 > deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water > already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a > while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. For tea, you're not supposed to boil the water, only let it seethe, as far as I know. But yes, drinking scalding hot beverages is quite stupid. I'm not arguing against that. But not realising that something you need to at the very least seethe to prepare might be hot when served is showing total ignorance. > >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > > >No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > >ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they > >cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a > >refill of their cola. > > Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 Sounds quite reasonable. Things have gone too far when there are warnings about even the most obvious things. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: > > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an > understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... -- Dmitry - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Can we stop repeating a ridiculous myth? Coffee is supposed to be served hot, very hot, hot enough to cause third-degree burns in seconds. Yes, really. Don't spill coffee on yourself or you could wind up in the hospital with severe burns. This is a simple fact even if coffee is served at the ideal serving temperature. The fact that coffee is dangerous means that it is a virtual certainty that dozens of people will be seriously burned by coffee every year. If this scares or bothers you, don't drink coffee. >1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and Right, 175 is the generally-recommended serving temperature and will also produce third-degree burns almost immediately. Coffee served *anywhere* inside the generally-accepted serving range will cause third degree burns almost immediately. Consumer studies show that people generally like their coffee more the hotter you serve it, with 190-200 degrees (the practical maximum) consistently winning over lower temperature ranges. Car manufacturers make cars that don't just go "fast" but *dangerously* fast (100 to 120 MPH), a speed that can result in death almost immediately. >2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Right, coffee is dangerous. It has always been and always will be if it's served at the proper temperature. Thousands of people hurt themselves skiing every year, yet the resorts stay open. The danger of burns is inherent to the serving of hot beverages. If you don't want to take that risk, don't order hot beverages. How many people die each year in car accidents? Is this in any way evidence that the car manufacturers are doing anything wrong? >yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time >to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? This is a *perfect* example. The tort system is meant to correct wrongdoing. McDonald's served coffee at the temperature customers prefer it, in holders that were perfectly suitable for beverages served at that temperature. The justice system made them pay because someone was *hurt*, not because anyone did something *wrong*. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > > > No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > > ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. > > So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. Don't drink and drive just got another application =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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/
OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: > > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an > understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 pgpZIqme0rRhn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
>
> That's less than 90�C. Water boils at 100�C. How the hell do
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic?
Ah, many thanks for converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius!
> > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an
understatement...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an > infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to > list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will > get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. -- Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren. http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: >> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > >That's less than 90°C. [1] >Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do >people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > >No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total >ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they >cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a >refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 -`J' --
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to > happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those > things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. -- Jens Axboe - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > you're welcome to read the details here: > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? rday - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: > The list of features which the driver supports is going to be > sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer > graphics hardware. Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent on the concept of using "XOR" in graphics operations (for dealing with a cursor that's moving around). There are plenty of patents involving optimizations that can't be proven unless you have access to the low-level source code or are willing to spend a huge amount of money disassembling megabytes of binaries. In fact, there are rumors floating around that pthe reason why no one is willing to release source code is that both sides are almost certainly violating each other's trivial patents, and defending against a patent lawsuit can take years, millions of dollars, and even if the patent is completely and totally bogus, can put a company out of business. Witness what happened with Research in Motion and the patents allegedly covering the Blackberry. Even though the USPTO had already provisionally ruled that there was prior art (the patent troll still had appeals to file), the judge wasn't willing to wait for the USPTO process to finish, and was prepared to issue a ruling that would put a 23 BILLION dollar company out of business. So RIMM ended up paying over half a billion dollars of blackmail money to settle a patent lawsuit where the patents may end up getting ruled completely bogus a year or two from now anyway. In any case, the rumor that was going around was that the reasn why neither side is willing to release sources is because whoever did would be committing potential corporate suicide first I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap and my favorite, to an idiot who lifted up a lawnmover to trim their hedges, dropped the lawnmover on his foot and lost his foot as a result. The lawn mover company had to pay $$$ because they hadn't thought to put in a idiot switch to stop the lawnmower blade from spinning when it was lifted off the ground - Ted P.S. The opinions expressed in this e-mail are completely my own; I'm not important enough to decide the corporate position of my employer. :-) - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: > On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in > > practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you > > have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump > > of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to > > a so-called "agreement" on the costs. > > On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. > > Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by > > people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in > > search of offenders. > > The list of features which the driver supports is going to be > sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer > graphics hardware. > > Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a > patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a > disassembler jockey. Most of the cases (more or less "almost all" AFAIK) are handled/closed without really going to court (since it is cheaper for all - especially if the alleged patent violator is substantially smaller than the patent holder and will not survive the law suit. See it as "protection money"). So there are no real statistics available on this issue. I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). Thus the patent holder takes the whole risk that I don't find anything useful (independent of the presence of a patent violation or my inability to find/identify it). And you need people wo are literate in "patent quak" and the technical side so it will IMHP not work if you get someone not very expensive[0]. > So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether > you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. > It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a > patent lawsuit. Given the above, the difference (measured in money/effort/) is in IMHO much larger than 1%. > Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable > reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that > the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they > don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer > them? I don't know. For network cards it helped to recommend hardware with open drivers. In the graphic card department this didn't worked up to now. Bernd [0]: That doesn't imply that hiring someone expensive guarantees success. -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called "agreement" on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of > hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about > software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which > violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release > binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, > false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your > source code then you're practising the invention without a license in > binaries compiled from that source code. Period. You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: [...] > I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of > hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about > software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which > violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release > binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, > false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your > source code then you're practising the invention without a license in > binaries compiled from that source code. Period. While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called "agreement" on the costs. > Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: > it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the > benefit. Which also may well be true. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: [...] I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Which also may well be true. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. Most of the cases (more or less almost all AFAIK) are handled/closed without really going to court (since it is cheaper for all - especially if the alleged patent violator is substantially smaller than the patent holder and will not survive the law suit. See it as protection money). So there are no real statistics available on this issue. I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). Thus the patent holder takes the whole risk that I don't find anything useful (independent of the presence of a patent violation or my inability to find/identify it). And you need people wo are literate in patent quak and the technical side so it will IMHP not work if you get someone not very expensive[0]. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Given the above, the difference (measured in money/effort/) is in IMHO much larger than 1%. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? I don't know. For network cards it helped to recommend hardware with open drivers. In the graphic card department this didn't worked up to now. Bernd [0]: That doesn't imply that hiring someone expensive guarantees success. -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent on the concept of using XOR in graphics operations (for dealing with a cursor that's moving around). There are plenty of patents involving optimizations that can't be proven unless you have access to the low-level source code or are willing to spend a huge amount of money disassembling megabytes of binaries. In fact, there are rumors floating around that pthe reason why no one is willing to release source code is that both sides are almost certainly violating each other's trivial patents, and defending against a patent lawsuit can take years, millions of dollars, and even if the patent is completely and totally bogus, can put a company out of business. Witness what happened with Research in Motion and the patents allegedly covering the Blackberry. Even though the USPTO had already provisionally ruled that there was prior art (the patent troll still had appeals to file), the judge wasn't willing to wait for the USPTO process to finish, and was prepared to issue a ruling that would put a 23 BILLION dollar company out of business. So RIMM ended up paying over half a billion dollars of blackmail money to settle a patent lawsuit where the patents may end up getting ruled completely bogus a year or two from now anyway. In any case, the rumor that was going around was that the reasn why neither side is willing to release sources is because whoever did would be committing potential corporate suicide first I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap and my favorite, to an idiot who lifted up a lawnmover to trim their hedges, dropped the lawnmover on his foot and lost his foot as a result. The lawn mover company had to pay $$$ because they hadn't thought to put in a idiot switch to stop the lawnmower blade from spinning when it was lifted off the ground - Ted P.S. The opinions expressed in this e-mail are completely my own; I'm not important enough to decide the corporate position of my employer. :-) - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? rday - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. -- Jens Axboe - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. [1] Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 -`J' --
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. -- Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren. http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
That's less than 90�C. Water boils at 100�C. How the hell do
people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic?
Ah, many thanks for converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius!
2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an
understatement...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 pgpZIqme0rRhn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote: David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. Don't drink and drive just got another application =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Can we stop repeating a ridiculous myth? Coffee is supposed to be served hot, very hot, hot enough to cause third-degree burns in seconds. Yes, really. Don't spill coffee on yourself or you could wind up in the hospital with severe burns. This is a simple fact even if coffee is served at the ideal serving temperature. The fact that coffee is dangerous means that it is a virtual certainty that dozens of people will be seriously burned by coffee every year. If this scares or bothers you, don't drink coffee. 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and Right, 175 is the generally-recommended serving temperature and will also produce third-degree burns almost immediately. Coffee served *anywhere* inside the generally-accepted serving range will cause third degree burns almost immediately. Consumer studies show that people generally like their coffee more the hotter you serve it, with 190-200 degrees (the practical maximum) consistently winning over lower temperature ranges. Car manufacturers make cars that don't just go fast but *dangerously* fast (100 to 120 MPH), a speed that can result in death almost immediately. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Right, coffee is dangerous. It has always been and always will be if it's served at the proper temperature. Thousands of people hurt themselves skiing every year, yet the resorts stay open. The danger of burns is inherent to the serving of hot beverages. If you don't want to take that risk, don't order hot beverages. How many people die each year in car accidents? Is this in any way evidence that the car manufacturers are doing anything wrong? yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? This is a *perfect* example. The tort system is meant to correct wrongdoing. McDonald's served coffee at the temperature customers prefer it, in holders that were perfectly suitable for beverages served at that temperature. The justice system made them pay because someone was *hurt*, not because anyone did something *wrong*. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html DS - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... -- Dmitry - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. [1] Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. For tea, you're not supposed to boil the water, only let it seethe, as far as I know. But yes, drinking scalding hot beverages is quite stupid. I'm not arguing against that. But not realising that something you need to at the very least seethe to prepare might be hot when served is showing total ignorance. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 Sounds quite reasonable. Things have gone too far when there are warnings about even the most obvious things. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? We have a coffee chain down here (.au) called 92degrees. They claim this is the optimal temperature for pumping the water through the ground coffee beans to get ideal coffee. So it doesn't need to be boiling. Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. NeilBrown - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote: Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. Yes, PLEEZE! --- ~Randy - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether or not McDonald's was in any way negligent or serving a defective or unreasonably dangerous product? This case should never have gotten past the earliest stages, and numerous factually similar cases were properly dismissed. There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, and nobody can reasonably claim they didn't know coffee was served hot. People might not realize that coffee is hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but McDonald's can't include an education with each cup of coffee, and the plaintiff's never suggest what warning they think would have been appropriate. Any failure to warn type argument is absurd on its face. (Does anyone honestly think anything would change if McDonald's included some kind of notice on the cups?) There is similarly no way you can argue that the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature people want their coffee served, well within industry standards. Hot coffee is inherently dangerous, and asking McDonald's to make their coffee colder than industry standards just to make it less dangerous is to argue that stores should sell dull knives. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature consumers want it, within accepted standards, that makes any danger inherent in that temperature reasonable. There is no suggestion that the cups or lids are somehow unsuitable. Any defective product or unreasonably dangerous argument is absurd on its face. What type of legal claim does this leave? The claim that McDonald's settled similar cases and is thus being arbitrary or trying to hide anything is nonsense. McDonald's, and other coffee sellers, have settled cases where they *did* do something wrong, such as failing to properly close the lid or where an employee actually dropped or spilled the coffee on a customer. The Stella Liebeck case, however, is a textbook example of a jury finding for a plaintiff in a completely meritless case for no reason other than that the defendant had deep pockets and the plaintiff was badly hurt. That there is no plausible connection between anything the defendant did wrong and the plaintiff's injuries was totally ignored. That none of the plaintiff's claims had even one shred of legal merit was totally ignored. What really amazes me though is that people continue to try to find some way to justify this crazy case. That ATLA defends the case with a series of confusing almost sort of true statements is embarassing. DS PS: In my previous post I made a few temperature conversion errors between Farenheit and Celsius. All temperatures were correct in the first specified units and the errors didn't affect the reasoning. My apologies, and thanks to those who caught it. - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. -- Brian Beattie Firmware Engineer APCON, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. The conversion was incorrect. 70C is about 160F, and 55C is about 130F. As I said in the correction, every number is correct in the unit it was first posted in, and all the claims are correct. 160F is the mininum recommended serving temperature and 165-190F is the preferred range. 130F is a ludicrously low serving temperature for coffee. 180F seems to be about ideal. Stella Liebeck's lawyers argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140F. This is no different from arguing that knives should be dull. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the 100F == 37C 125F == 52C 55C == 131F 70C == 158F Yes, 100F *is* ludicrously low for coffee. :) pgpzvU9q5Otdl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were added after that lawsuit. pgpsyjbrl64U8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or "obviousness" grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: > > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > > translate.. > > > > Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we > > don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. > > There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code > without getting sued... > > The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even > totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, > that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of > code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those > vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or > "obviousness" grounds. You know, not releasing source code doesn't make "IP" violations magically disappear, so if anything you should be more suspicious about closed source drivers infringing others patents than anything. > So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP > issues? If you have to worry about "IP", you're screwed no matter if you release source or not. The only problem is that it might be trickier for the other party to prove. The only case where a closed source driver makes some kind of sense from an "IP" point of view is when you're trying to protect your own code (or code you have licensed). > Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*. > I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy > a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. Well, you can always make a contribution by using public transportation or switching to low energy light bulbs. Every little thing counts =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > translate.. > > Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we > don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or "obviousness" grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. pgpDu8p39IVdm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said: > That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried > about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on > with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would > work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents > on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone > else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where > software patents are generally not valid. > > The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything > that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or > licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be > worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :) pgptJoVEQwSXZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said: That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :) pgptJoVEQwSXZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? Remember - somebody *can* get it but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. pgpDu8p39IVdm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. You know, not releasing source code doesn't make IP violations magically disappear, so if anything you should be more suspicious about closed source drivers infringing others patents than anything. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? If you have to worry about IP, you're screwed no matter if you release source or not. The only problem is that it might be trickier for the other party to prove. The only case where a closed source driver makes some kind of sense from an IP point of view is when you're trying to protect your own code (or code you have licensed). Remember - somebody *can* get it but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. Well, you can always make a contribution by using public transportation or switching to low energy light bulbs. Every little thing counts =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > translate.. That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > > they licensed from other companies What makes you think they "get it"? In a recent interview (http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/bsdtalk054-interview-with-andy-ritger.html) the nvidia developer had this to say: "Quite honestly we have a lot of ip sorrounding both our hardware and our software. And so the driver we provide is binary only, ya know, to protect that intellectual property. You know, I guess, on a software side, so much of what we do, err, of the code that comprises that drivers is common and leveraged across all the operating systems and I think that is a big benefit. You know we are able to accomplish a lot with a fairly small, err, unix specific engineering team because we're able to leverage so much common code. Ya know, that really is a big win for us and our users, and so, ya know, we provide a binary only driver to protect that ip. Umm, that said, we do try to, ya know, provide source for, err, ya know, for things when it makes sense and its possible to do so. I guess for our various unix graphics drivers, the interface between *cough* excuse me, the core of the binary, err the core of the kernel module is operating system neutral .. is shipped binary only but anything that, ya know, interacts directly with, with unix kernel, be it linux or freebsd or whatever, we provide the source code to that interface layer. Similarly, err, I guess, up in user space, umm, you know, we were talking either about, umm, the nvida X extension and our control panel nvidia-settings. The source code for that is provided as GPL. We provide a command line tool nvidia-xconfig for manipulating your xconfiguration files. We provide that as GPL. So we do try to provide source code to those sorts of utilities and things like that when it makes sense. Umm, but the core of our driver, we only provide as binary." Yeah, really sounds like he "gets it". Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. That wasn't some marketting stooge they were interviewing either, it was two of the guys who work on the unix porting team for the nvidia drivers. They don't get it. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that > > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no > > hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big > > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, > > or no? > > Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Of course. But it is much better for the patent-interested parties if it wouldn't be necessary (and said parties are actually complaining about the "must publish" thing). And the times are long gone when a patent was actually "publishing". They use since ages there own secret language so - the patent system as such doen not enforce "publisching" (except you are one of speakers of "patent quak"). - that even the most trivial idea looks like it is very complicated. - that even an already implemented idean looks like it is very new. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Of course. But it is much better for the patent-interested parties if it wouldn't be necessary (and said parties are actually complaining about the must publish thing). And the times are long gone when a patent was actually publishing. They use since ages there own secret language so - the patent system as such doen not enforce publisching (except you are one of speakers of patent quak). - that even the most trivial idea looks like it is very complicated. - that even an already implemented idean looks like it is very new. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies What makes you think they get it? In a recent interview (http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/bsdtalk054-interview-with-andy-ritger.html) the nvidia developer had this to say: Quite honestly we have a lot of ip sorrounding both our hardware and our software. And so the driver we provide is binary only, ya know, to protect that intellectual property. You know, I guess, on a software side, so much of what we do, err, of the code that comprises that drivers is common and leveraged across all the operating systems and I think that is a big benefit. You know we are able to accomplish a lot with a fairly small, err, unix specific engineering team because we're able to leverage so much common code. Ya know, that really is a big win for us and our users, and so, ya know, we provide a binary only driver to protect that ip. Umm, that said, we do try to, ya know, provide source for, err, ya know, for things when it makes sense and its possible to do so. I guess for our various unix graphics drivers, the interface between *cough* excuse me, the core of the binary, err the core of the kernel module is operating system neutral .. is shipped binary only but anything that, ya know, interacts directly with, with unix kernel, be it linux or freebsd or whatever, we provide the source code to that interface layer. Similarly, err, I guess, up in user space, umm, you know, we were talking either about, umm, the nvida X extension and our control panel nvidia-settings. The source code for that is provided as GPL. We provide a command line tool nvidia-xconfig for manipulating your xconfiguration files. We provide that as GPL. So we do try to provide source code to those sorts of utilities and things like that when it makes sense. Umm, but the core of our driver, we only provide as binary. Yeah, really sounds like he gets it. Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. That wasn't some marketting stooge they were interviewing either, it was two of the guys who work on the unix porting team for the nvidia drivers. They don't get it. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that > > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no > > hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big > > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, > > or no? > > Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? (Argh - I was too busy coming down with the flu to carefully read what I wrote, and as a result I was a tad less that totally specific and accurate. Hopefully I get it closer to right this time. ;) Patent licenses are also a good place to hang all sorts of side agreements on - and I'm pretty sure that the *actual* intellectual property involved is a witches' brew of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, all wrapped up with a nice "thou shalt not disclose *any* of it" wrapper. In any case, there isn't much that *any* company can do to open-source something when they've got any sort of legally binding NDA attached to 3rd-party intellectual property. At best, they can design an entirely new product that totally avoids the IP in question - but as I noted last time, the company *does* have to do a sanity check when 90% of the market doesn't care in the slightest. pgpOtR0H9mRIk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? (Argh - I was too busy coming down with the flu to carefully read what I wrote, and as a result I was a tad less that totally specific and accurate. Hopefully I get it closer to right this time. ;) Patent licenses are also a good place to hang all sorts of side agreements on - and I'm pretty sure that the *actual* intellectual property involved is a witches' brew of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, all wrapped up with a nice thou shalt not disclose *any* of it wrapper. In any case, there isn't much that *any* company can do to open-source something when they've got any sort of legally binding NDA attached to 3rd-party intellectual property. At best, they can design an entirely new product that totally avoids the IP in question - but as I noted last time, the company *does* have to do a sanity check when 90% of the market doesn't care in the slightest. pgpOtR0H9mRIk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no > hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, > or no? Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Erik -- +-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 -- | Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said: > So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers, > it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers > *hardware* companies distribute. The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot about the innards of the hardware, which is something the hardware companies *do* want to protect. > This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake > companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open > Graphics Card At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? If they produce a blazing-fast card and they manage to sell to 30% of the Windows users, they've sold to about 27% of all computer users. If they skip the patent and produce a slower card to please the Linux users, even if they sell to half the Linux users, that's only 5-6% of the market. Which course of action is any CFO going to choose? (And let's not underestimate the possibility that some yet-undisclosed submarine patent will torpedo the Open Graphics Card if they unwittingly re-invent something owned by a company that wants the card to fail) pgp42bSKunYO0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: [...] > The argument that a hardware company usually > invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's > pitute about the software itself, they do care > about the information the software contains > about their hardware. The concern is that > publishing the software under any form of open > or free license would be seen as publishing > the details of the hardware, thus making any > claims that they attempted to protect thier > intellectual property void. They would sell > less hardware because they would have no legal > recourse against anyone who "stole" the secrets > to their hardware. The more realistic and more expensive threat is not the above (yes, one can "copy" an already released product after reverse enginnering and also try to sell it but how long - in calendar time - does this take? And during that time the original is sold all the time) but it is much easier to detect (real or potential) patent violations and the fun begins probably. And ATM is is practically not possible to build anything remotely "technical" without violating hundreds of patents somewhere (they may be legal or "illegal" or trivial or software as such but if a patent is granted it is there). > I make no claims to understanding the legal > basis for this position. I don't even know if > I think it makes sense. I have heard it often > enough to understand that many people believe > it though. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: [...] The argument that a hardware company usually invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's pitute about the software itself, they do care about the information the software contains about their hardware. The concern is that publishing the software under any form of open or free license would be seen as publishing the details of the hardware, thus making any claims that they attempted to protect thier intellectual property void. They would sell less hardware because they would have no legal recourse against anyone who stole the secrets to their hardware. The more realistic and more expensive threat is not the above (yes, one can copy an already released product after reverse enginnering and also try to sell it but how long - in calendar time - does this take? And during that time the original is sold all the time) but it is much easier to detect (real or potential) patent violations and the fun begins probably. And ATM is is practically not possible to build anything remotely technical without violating hundreds of patents somewhere (they may be legal or illegal or trivial or software as such but if a patent is granted it is there). I make no claims to understanding the legal basis for this position. I don't even know if I think it makes sense. I have heard it often enough to understand that many people believe it though. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said: So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers, it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers *hardware* companies distribute. The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot about the innards of the hardware, which is something the hardware companies *do* want to protect. This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open Graphics Card At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? If they produce a blazing-fast card and they manage to sell to 30% of the Windows users, they've sold to about 27% of all computer users. If they skip the patent and produce a slower card to please the Linux users, even if they sell to half the Linux users, that's only 5-6% of the market. Which course of action is any CFO going to choose? (And let's not underestimate the possibility that some yet-undisclosed submarine patent will torpedo the Open Graphics Card if they unwittingly re-invent something owned by a company that wants the card to fail) pgp42bSKunYO0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
--- Giuseppe Bilotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies > here, not > *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make > money by selling > *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in > fact, they always > distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers) > for free (gratis). > > So while what you say is perfectly sensible for > *software* developers, > it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed > source drivers > *hardware* companies distribute. The argument that a hardware company usually invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's pitute about the software itself, they do care about the information the software contains about their hardware. The concern is that publishing the software under any form of open or free license would be seen as publishing the details of the hardware, thus making any claims that they attempted to protect thier intellectual property void. They would sell less hardware because they would have no legal recourse against anyone who "stole" the secrets to their hardware. I make no claims to understanding the legal basis for this position. I don't even know if I think it makes sense. I have heard it often enough to understand that many people believe it though. Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote: > For a professional developer of any software the decision of open > sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems > because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway. > However a professional developer can release software under GPL only if > it's considered invaluable or if there is some way to guarantee > sufficient income. Releasing something under GPL without a guaranteed > backup plan is like jumping from an airplane without parasuit. Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies here, not *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make money by selling *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in fact, they always distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers) for free (gratis). So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers, it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers *hardware* companies distribute. This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open Graphics Card http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics to succeed. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta Hic manebimus optime - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote: For a professional developer of any software the decision of open sourcing it is not easy. Just for fun developers have no problems because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway. However a professional developer can release software under GPL only if it's considered invaluable or if there is some way to guarantee sufficient income. Releasing something under GPL without a guaranteed backup plan is like jumping from an airplane without parasuit. Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies here, not *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make money by selling *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in fact, they always distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers) for free (gratis). So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers, it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers *hardware* companies distribute. This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open Graphics Card http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics to succeed. -- Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta Hic manebimus optime - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
--- Giuseppe Bilotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies here, not *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make money by selling *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in fact, they always distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers) for free (gratis). So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers, it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers *hardware* companies distribute. The argument that a hardware company usually invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's pitute about the software itself, they do care about the information the software contains about their hardware. The concern is that publishing the software under any form of open or free license would be seen as publishing the details of the hardware, thus making any claims that they attempted to protect thier intellectual property void. They would sell less hardware because they would have no legal recourse against anyone who stole the secrets to their hardware. I make no claims to understanding the legal basis for this position. I don't even know if I think it makes sense. I have heard it often enough to understand that many people believe it though. Casey Schaufler [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marek Wawrzyczny wrote: > Dear Linux Kernel ML, > > I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with > the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel. > > While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and > drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into > developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to > have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support > for some of their products altogether. > As a developer of some "closed source" drivers I can confirm that this is exactly the case. I would never consider open sourcing my work just because somebody is pointing pistol to my neck. I would leave the whole IT business and start doing something else rather than accept this kind of mafia-like negotiation methods. Why is this dead horse still kicking? Linus already spoke on this issue ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 , http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/218 ) and Greg KH already withdrew his patch ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63 ), so could we please just let this dead horse rest in peace? -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marek Wawrzyczny wrote: Dear Linux Kernel ML, I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel. While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support for some of their products altogether. As a developer of some closed source drivers I can confirm that this is exactly the case. I would never consider open sourcing my work just because somebody is pointing pistol to my neck. I would leave the whole IT business and start doing something else rather than accept this kind of mafia-like negotiation methods. Why is this dead horse still kicking? Linus already spoke on this issue ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 , http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/218 ) and Greg KH already withdrew his patch ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63 ), so could we please just let this dead horse rest in peace? -- Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
