On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:30:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Perhaps I should construct a package for non-free which instructs users to
> download Broadcom's driver; then unpacks it, and converts and installs the
> firmware files appropriately? (I *am* sure that Broadcom permits
> distribut
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas writes:
>> > In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
>> > has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying "you
>> > must distribute complete source" and then failing to
John Hasler wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>> To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing.
>> I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can
>> easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from
>> what you assume.
>
> T
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
>> distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they
>> are simply being sloppy about licensing.
> You know well that upstre
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
> practice in lawsuits.
Right, but this is not imputation of intent, and it's generally done
under the UCC which worked a sea change in US commercial contracts law
for this purpose, b
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something merely by
> > assuming that it must be the same as persons B, C, and D.
>
> Well, of course you can. A lot of contracts are made this way (for
> example, if you buy something in a shop).
Actuall
Florian Weimer writes:
> Is U.S. law really *that* different?
No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
practice in lawsuits.
--
John Hasler
* Thomas Bushnell:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The intent implied by publically releasing a work under the GPL is well
>> understood and widely known. I don't believe that they would stand any
>> chance of getting an injunction, let alone damages.
>
> You cannot infer person A'
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this case, one would be well advised to obtain an explicit waiver
> on the point, rather than to rely on such.
>
> Regardless, the question is irrelevant to Debian, because we require
> source.
Debian does not require source for non-free. Th
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:47:26AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> What do you mean by "legally"? Copyright infringement is a tort, and there
> is no way they could win an infringement lawsuit against a distributor for
> failing to redistribute the source for the blobs when they did not supply
> it th
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The intent implied by publically releasing a work under the GPL is well
> understood and widely known. I don't believe that they would stand any
> chance of getting an injunction, let alone damages.
You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something m
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas writes:
> > In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
> > has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying "you
> > must distribute complete source" and then failing to provide it.
>
> He has provided wh
Nathanael Nerode writes:
> To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing.
> I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can
> easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from
> what you assume.
The intent implied by publicall
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean by "legally"? Copyright infringement is a tort, and there
> is no way they could win an infringement lawsuit against a distributor for
> failing to redistribute the source for the blobs when they did not supply
> it themselves and yet asse
Thomas writes:
> In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
> has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying "you
> must distribute complete source" and then failing to provide it.
He has provided what he claims is source. If he sues me for redistribu
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> * Nathanael Nerode:
>>> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
>>> distribute.
>>
>> Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
>> might sue you for distributing something
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scripsit sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
> > arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
> > providing the source code to the firmware blobs.
>
>
Scripsit sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
> arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
> providing the source code to the firmware blobs.
The copyright holder cannot logically be in violation of hi
sean writes:
> they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
> arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
> providing the source code to the firmware blobs. if they were in fact in
> violation of said terms, debian could not legally distribute t
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 09:06 -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
> > might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
> > released under the GPL, and
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
> might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
> released under the GPL, and actually have a case? They might as well
> sue Debian because
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
>> distribute.
>
> Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
> might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
> rel
* Nathanael Nerode:
>> Unless of course the firmware itself is GPL'd, and therefore no one
>> can legally give it out without offering the source as well.
>
> It is GPLed. This is why it hasn't been put in non-free. :-P
> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
> dist
On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
> distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they
> are simply being sloppy about licensing.
You know well that upstream is not "being sloppy", but
Nico Golde wrote:
> hi
> * Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-10 15:46]:
>> Daniel Freedman wrote:
>> > Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
>> > Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
>> > compability with this without downloading
Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 07:10:33PM -0400, Daniel Freedman wrote:
>> Unfortunately, I believe that my server board contains one of the rare
>> on-board Broadcom chipsets that is completely unable to function (best
>> as I can tell), without downloading this firmware, or with
hi
* Roland Stigge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-10-10 15:46]:
> Daniel Freedman wrote:
> > Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
> > Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
> > compability with this without downloading the firmware and violating
>
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 07:10:33PM -0400, Daniel Freedman wrote:
> Unfortunately, I believe that my server board contains one of the rare
> on-board Broadcom chipsets that is completely unable to function (best
> as I can tell), without downloading this firmware, or without at least
> disabling the
Hi,
Daniel Freedman wrote:
> Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
> Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
> compability with this without downloading the firmware and violating
> the DFSG?
Since the tg3 driver doesn't work with my BCM5702 i
Hi,
I'm writing regarding the issue of inclusion of TG3 binary firmware in
the Debian-distributed Linux post-2.6.5 kernels. I understand this
has been a contentious topic, and I've read most of the mailing list
archives on it, so I'm not trying to restart the debate, but merely
adding some additi
30 matches
Mail list logo
