> But wait; firmware is *not* linking with the kernel, as the icons
> are *not* linking with emacs. Or are they? What is linking? If you
> consider linking to give names fixups and resolving them, well, the
> char tg3_fw[] = ... is linked with the kernel all right. If you
> consider that a call (
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 res
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 21:01, Michael Poole wrote:
> Michael Poole writes:
>
> > What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
> > a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
> > not because it is a distribution medium for software.
>
> To tie tha
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 communi
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 20:47, Michael Poole wrote:
> Patrick Herzig writes:
>
> > The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
> > "storage or distribution medium". Storage or distribution of binary
> > blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>>It is not his interpretation of copyright law, but his interpretation
>>>of the license, that is incorrect.
>>
>>It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
>>it to mean.
>
> Reference, pl
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,
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
Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
>
>> At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
>> interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
>> containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
>> files from the archive, and c
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III writes:
> >> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> >> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole w
Michael Poole wrote:
> Josh Triplett writes:
>>Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
>>are distributed "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
>>Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
>
> They are part of a Debian system.
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> @ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>
> >Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
> >compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
> >aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single
> > Firmware images embedded in kernel drivers fit neither.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:39:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Please, demonstrate why the firmware is not an independent work. No
> one has done so yet. Then define "interdependent programs" and
> explain why that concept is relevant
Michael Poole writes:
> What does the primary purpose have anything to do with it? When I buy
> a new computer, I do it because I want the functionality it offers --
> not because it is a distribution medium for software.
To tie that into GPL: Does that mean that if I buy a machine
pre-installed
Patrick Herzig writes:
> The question is if the Linux kernel itself can be interpreted as being a
> "storage or distribution medium". Storage or distribution of binary
> blobs is at least not the primary purpose of the Linux kernel as it
> would be much easier to just store or distribute them on t
Josh Triplett writes:
> Mere aggregation only applies to independent works, and only when they
> are distributed "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
> Separate, non-interdependent programs on Debian CDs fit both criteria.
They are part of a Debian system. That makes them neither s
I'm sorry, I messed something up with my mailer in the previous message.
This reply is in the correct thread (see below quote).
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
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.
>
Michael Poole wrote:
> Alexander Cherepanov writes:
>
>>Look, it explicitly mentions "a work containing the Program". The
>>language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that "work based
>>on the Program" is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
>>the original work, be it a d
William Lee Irwin III writes:
>> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
>> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is corre
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Rau
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.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/06/msg00
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
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 o
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 contention is that having some helper function load the
18-Jun-04 12:55 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>>
>> > This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
>> > transformation??!!
>>
>>
>> Why is this a problem?
> *because* t
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 10:51, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> > exception to < > any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> > the Pr
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 t
> > Why is this a problem?
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:55:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> *because* the GPL exempts "mere aggregation"
> > The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of
> > collective works based on GPLed code. It grants an exception, but
> > that exception do
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:16:50AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> broke this thread for the 16th time, despite having been asked to fix
> his mailer repeatedly
Why do you refuse to fix your horribly broken mailer?
--
Glenn Maynard
Alexander Cherepanov writes:
> Look, it explicitly mentions "a work containing the Program". The
> language is probably not ideal but it's crystal clear that "work based
> on the Program" is intended to mean _any_ work containing some part of
> the original work, be it a derived work, a compilatio
17-Jun-04 12:24 Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
>>My point is that any sentence talking about "a work based on the
>>Program" is by default talking about both derivative and collective
>>works.
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work bas
@ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of
collect
@ 18/06/2004 12:49 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
*because* the GPL exempts "mere aggregation"
The GPL excercises
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 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> exception to < any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications...>>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:12:13PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is the problem: why is it not mere aggregation? where is the
> transformation??!!
Why is this a problem?
The GPL excercises the right to control the distribution of collective
works based on GPLed code. It grants an excep
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 der
@ 18/06/2004 11:41 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Now let's say I start distributing WinFoo with wine. This is a
>compilation derivative of his compilation. It's clearly not mere
>aggregation, as the two pieces combine to produce a single work.
>If I publish an anthology of short stories, that
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
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 th
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 fro
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> The installer can be GPLed, sure. Why shouldn't it be? You will
>> likely run into other copyright issues because you do not have
>> permission to redistribute Microsoft Word like that, but it is
>> irrelevant to the GPLness of the i
@ 18/06/2004 11:25 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>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
>>der
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 08:35:23PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 2004, at 22:25, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'm not sure I buy the argument that WinFoo is a deri
@ 18/06/2004 10:39 : wrote Dave Howe :
At what point does the unpackager/installer become an
interdependency? most installers come in three forms 1) a archive
containing the product, and a uncompactor capable of extracting the
files from the archive, and correctly placing them (possibly unde
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 (antholo
I apologize for the cross-posting to linux-kernel, but this seems
relevant to me (even if it comes from debian- lists) to the kernel
developers as a whole.
@ 18/06/2004 10:02 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>The firmware typically wasn't patched, an
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:25AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I would be much more convinced if I saw an argument from the
> GPL-incompatible-firmware-is-OK side as to why the GPL prohibits
> distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
The interpretation favoured by kernel
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But why do I have permission to distribute the GPL'd installer that
way (let's say it incorporates Emacs for some reason)? This isn't
mere aggregation -- it would be if the files were next to each other
on a CD and otherwise unrelated, but it's clear that there are
@ 18/06/2004 09:56 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of
the license requirements, he should check.
@ 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
@ 18/06/2004 09:50 : wrote Matthew Palmer :
I would imagine that a lot of the patches in the kernel are
derivative works of the kernel, besides. This is, I would imagine,
the major difference between the kernel and a "standard" anthology.
- Matt
That's why I exposed in detail my point i
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? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the
>>> license requirements, he should check.
>>
>> I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer
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 compilati
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:04:18AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> 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 ever
@ 17/06/2004 21:21 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Indeed. For that matter, disassemblers perform mechanical translations,
so if the disassembled code were not a derived work of the executable,
that would greatly aid most reverse-engineering efforts.
- Josh Triplett
No, mechanical translations a
@ 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:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1
@ 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. Th
@ 17/06/2004 19:34 : wrote Francesco Poli :
Well, if MS Word is installed by unpacking a separate package, then
it's merely data from the installer point of view. In this case, yes,
the installer can be GPL'd. Just as dpkg(8) which is GPL'd, but, of
course, using it to install a non-free deb
@ 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 uncal
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:54:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Surely if
> anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market
> capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
No, quite the opposite. The former will not be seriously afflicted by
co
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:16:46PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > Being derivative is a property of a work, not a property of its
> > > distribution.
> >
> > And it is that property of the combined work to which the FSF objects
> > -- no matter how tricky the instructions are about who doe
* 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,
>
66 matches
Mail list logo
