sql-ledger may belong in non-free

2005-04-04 Thread Warren Turkal
I am not subscribed to this list. Please CC if you need me to reply. I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on Extending

Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free

2005-04-04 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: I am not subscribed to this list. Please CC if you need me to reply. If you wish to be copied on replies to Debian lists, please set your Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this, instead of asking everyone else to adjust headers

Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free

2005-04-04 Thread Warren Turkal
On Monday 04 April 2005 04:12 am, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: If you wish to be copied on replies to Debian lists, please set your Mail-Followup-To header to indicate this, instead of asking everyone else to adjust headers manually. :)

Re: Linux and GPLv2

2005-04-04 Thread Måns Rullgård
Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you can find us a country whose laws make this illegal, this issue would be worth discussing. On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 06:15:34PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote: You are obviously convinced that using a command line interface can't be protected by

non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
Hello, quick sumary Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs, and to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the copyright holders of said non-free firmware blobls is needed, read below for details. /quick sumary Please keep everyone in

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-04 Thread Andrew Suffield
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:22:32PM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: I reject your attempt to make me decide without extra data. What extra data do you need? So far we've had apparently-expert opinions in both directions about how this situation would be viewed by courts. I feel I need

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Michael Poole
Sven Luther writes: Hello, quick sumary Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs, and to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the copyright holders of said non-free firmware blobls is needed, read below for details. /quick sumary

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere technicality to get out of the muddy situation, all the people having contributed

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere technicality to get out of

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere technicality to get out of

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it. Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in the Linux source base. Last time this came up, the Acenic

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, like they did with tg3 and others. This sucks, yes. -- ciao, Marco (@debian.org) signature.asc

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Ian Campbell
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it. [...] All i am asking is that *the copyright holders* of said firmware

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it.

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, like they did with tg3 and others. Their

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, like they did with tg3 and others. Nope,

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Marco d'Itri
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, like they did with tg3 and others. Nope, they were simply moved to non-free, as it should. I

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver, like they did with tg3 and others. And

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Raul Miller
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing this in order to solve that problem.

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it. Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in the Linux source base. Last time this

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Roland Dreier
Ian I think what Greg may have meant[0] was that if it bothers Ian you, then you should act by contacting the copyright holders Ian privately yourself in each case that you come across and Ian asking them if you may add a little comment etc, and then Ian submit patches once you

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it. Actually, there are some legitimate

Re: sql-ledger may belong in non-free

2005-04-04 Thread Raul Miller
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:35:10AM -0500, Warren Turkal wrote: I was reading through the Terms Conditions[1] (henceforth Terms page) on the and I am not sure that it conforms to the DFSG, specifically section 3. If you look at the Terms page, you will notice that the section on Extending and

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Jeff Garzik
Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: Matthew Wilcox wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved problem, or the ones discussing it. Actually, there are some

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Theodore Ts'o
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is not of dubious legal standing, and that we could get sued over for GPL violation.

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700,

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is not of

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: Sven Luther wrote: Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as the firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being

Re: Creative Commons license summary (version 4)

2005-04-04 Thread Francesco Poli
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 08:44:08 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote: Francesco Poli wrote: [...] * the acceptability of software and other content Content? Which other content does Debian distribute besides software? If, by software, you mean non-hardware (as it seems from the rest of the

Re: Creative Commons license summary (version 4)

2005-04-04 Thread Thomas
Francesco Poli wrote: [...] Actually, if CC folk read software as programs and only programs, they will look at | This includes comparing software against the DFSG to determine if the | packages are Free Software. and say OK, you compare /software/ against the DFSG, but our licenses are not

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

2005-04-04 Thread Thomas
Francesco Poli wrote: yep, sorry ;-) Please, do not reply to me directly Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it. Better reply to the list only, instead: I'm a subscriber and would rather not receive replies twice. Thanks. [...] On the contrary! :) I think you should go on reading this useful

Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.

2005-04-04 Thread Matthew Garrett
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (-project added to the Cc:, non-debian related lists removed) No documentation for the C compiler (not even a documentation of the options) will be neither fun for the users of Debian nor for the Debian maintainers - but it's the future of Debian...

Re: lirc license

2005-04-04 Thread Andreas Bombe
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:29:26AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:42:36PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: In the case of gcc, it wasn't anything fuzzy. IIRC, libgcc is linked statically into the executable to provide startup code etc. and it used to be GPL. libgcc

[PATCH 00/04] Load keyspan firmware with hotplug

2005-04-04 Thread Jan Harkes
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ? http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html Can you summarize the conclusion of

[PATCH 02/04] Load keyspan firmware with hotplug

2005-04-04 Thread Jan Harkes
Convert the keyspan USB serial driver to use request_firmware and firmware_load_ihex. Signed-off-by: Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan.c === --- linux.orig/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan.c

[PATCH 03/04] Load keyspan firmware with hotplug

2005-04-04 Thread Jan Harkes
Simple program to convert the keyspan firmware header files to IHEX formatted files that can be loaded with hotplug. This is really only needed once to convert the existing keyspan firmware headers, which is what the next patch will do. Signed-off-by: Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index:

Debian export question: JAPAN and the world

2005-04-04 Thread Satoshi Kawase (Fukuoka)
Hello I work for a major Japanese electronics company and we would like include Debian into one of our new products. The trouble we are facing is that because Japan is one of the countries in the wassenaar arrangement exports of cryptographic software count as munitions and hence must be passed

Re: [PATCH 00/04] Load keyspan firmware with hotplug

2005-04-04 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 04 April 2005 23:23, Jan Harkes wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?

Re: [PATCH 00/04] Load keyspan firmware with hotplug

2005-04-04 Thread Sven Luther
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?

Re: Debian export question: JAPAN and the world

2005-04-04 Thread Don Armstrong
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005, Satoshi Kawase (Fukuoka) wrote: I work for a major Japanese electronics company and we would like include Debian into one of our new products. Excellent. While I've found lots of information regarding how to export Debian outside the U.S. (