[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
it to mean.
Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic (Words mean
exactly
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
Your reaction is uncalled-for.
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
for a large percentage of users. Those users
@ 17/06/2004 18:27 : wrote Raul Miller :
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means
that a ...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
@ 18/06/2004 09:52 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) should be
considered a compilation
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative works from the rights of a collective (anthology)
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
derivative works from the
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
would be each and every patch that entered the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
understand. All ok. IRT making
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it?
AFAICS it contains not a derivative in the legal sense but the
original in a different
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:50:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
If it's undistributable, it obviously doesn't belong in main. So please
remove the undistributable stuff. Second, if it's non-free, it doesn't
belong in the kernel, which is in main. So remove anything that is
non-free from the
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:34:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
The current release policy says that all firmware not licensed under
GPL-compatible licenses needs to be removed. It also says that any
sourceless firmware needs to be removed.
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
as to why the GPL prohibits
distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
It doesn't. If some work includes a GPL'ed work and is distributed,
then the whole work must be GPL compatible. This doesn't extend to a
collection of works.
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
Raul Miller writes:
Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
The usual
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
There are four classes of firmware:
1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have to
go right away, or be relicensed. Thankfully, there are few of these, and
the kernel team seems to be willing to help pursue the relicensing.
2. Firmware which
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:02, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
I
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040616 22:25]:
Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
There is a company that claims that itself is the copyright holder of
some Unix sources, and that thinks that use of that concepts is a
breach of copyright. Should we accept
Michael Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
copyright notices attributable to him or Yggdrasil before 2000.
Andrew Suffield writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Incompetence (or laziness) on the part of the plaintiff is a perfectly
adequate reason to invoke either of those defenses. Until you cite
specific case law, I will disbelieve your claim that proof of
Joe Wreschnig writes:
I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
times an identifier is used, count the number of lines,
Raul Miller wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
is mere aggregation is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
external file) a derivative of GNU
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's just
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than this is
nonsense, this is obvious, or some broken analogy.
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
However, this sentence makes clear that works based on the Program
is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In addition,
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the inclusion of
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Joe Wreschnig wrote: [snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived
from the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the
firmware is a derivative of
Troll.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what it says?).
You seem to be
Michael wrote:
Several (a plurality, if not majority) of US federal court districts
use the Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test to determine
whether one computer program infringes on another's copyright --
[snip]
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
law
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
Raul Miller writes:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
differences between
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware,
Raul Miller writes:
Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
into the kernel.
According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective work
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:18AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
At best that solves a third of the problem. What
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:46:26PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is
distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they
have granted us_.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link?
People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the
kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
They can believe what they want. But for legal relevance they have
to show how exactly the firmware was derived from the rest of the
code (or vice versa). If they can't, it is merely a collection of
works.
Don't be absurd. Any resulting binary is obviously
[Humberto: Can you please fix your MUA so that it provides
In-Reply-To:, References:, and doesn't break threads?]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Humberto Massa wrote:
Firmware with _any_ distributable license + kernel (GPL) =
distributable even if non-free.
This is not clear a priori.
Firmware and
Andrew Suffield writes:
The compiled kernel is almost certainly a derivative of the firmware
included in it. A good lawyer might be able to get you out of
this. Debian can *not* afford to assume that it would win such a case,
not least because of a lack of funding for good lawyers.
Anyone
Andrew Suffield writes:
Estoppel would bar a claim if the plaintiff first
contributed code to a kernel that already had binary blob components.
A merely decent lawyer may be able to invoke laches depending on how
long an author was silent after the first binary blob was added to the
kernel,
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
Program, it refers to any program or other work licensed under the
GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
derivative) works in just two
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
Joe Wreschnig writes:
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux
Raul Miller writes:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
Program, it refers to any program or other work licensed under the
GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
derivative)
However, this sentence makes clear that works based on the Program
is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not
Joe Wreschnig writes:
Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? Note
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:57:15PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
I ask because such a file is present in Debian's Linux kernel sources and
there seems to have been no attempt to remove it, despite the upload of
new versions since the bug report.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:38, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040615 21:27]:
I request that the people planning to take over kernel maintenance comment
ASAP on their plans regarding this issue,
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 19:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:51:03PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-06-15 at 14:38, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040615 21:27]:
I request that the people planning to take over kernel maintenance
61 matches
Mail list logo
