Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
>>Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he
>>thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of
>>modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with
> their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel
> packages.
No, it's not. The firmware, if done right, will be in
architecture-independent, kernel-version-neutral packages.
--
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:51:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner we can't
> get out of. We *need* a clarification. This assumption of the worst
> possible isn't acceptable or even reasonable. Given that we need a
> clarification the b
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "We can't reasonably get permission to do this" does *not* mean "therefore
> let's just assume we have it". Debian makes a strong effort not to be
> that sloppy and careless with licensing.
We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:34:40PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the
> kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs
> that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all
> risk like gett
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
> > clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
>
> If it's the case, then it's the case. "I
Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> >>'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> >>copyright infringement.
> >So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
> clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
If it's the case, then it's the case. "Inconvenient" does not imply
"false", whether we like
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder.
>
> I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire
> Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt
> it), I'm sure there's
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he
> thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of
> modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then
> I don't think we h
Thiemo Seufer said on Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:18:00AM +0200,:
> What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver
> support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a
> rather
That is what I used to think, till I realised that the prospect of a
large numbe
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> [I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel
> free to send it back over there if you think it's more
> appropriate.[1]]
M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set.
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
> > I woul
Stephen writes:
> In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright
> holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their
> own license.
Linus is only the copyright owner of those portions of the kernel that he
personally wrote. Each contributor owns the
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware?
Good idea. And two interesting posts related tot his issue:
(Wed, 10 Dec 2003 )
http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=11gWH-4XN-1%40gated-at.bofh.it&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
"And I think thi
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > For "possible", that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
>
> Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
> is a clear-cut violation of the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:20:10AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> >>'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> >>copyright infringement.
> >So does Debian consider t
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:22:29 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
>> policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the
>> license it is shippe
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
I'd hope so, i
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> For "possible", that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
is a clear-cut violation of the terms of the GPL.
I don't think even existing practi
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> > Debian immediately.
>
> Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
> license violation.
For "possible",
Lewis Jardine wrote:
[snip]
> As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
> 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
> copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
> Debian immediately.
Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
license violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
>
> How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
> themselves at legal risk.
If you want to avoid every imagin
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
This isn't a matter of a "stance"; this is a matter of trying to
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
> > of kernel stuff.
>
> Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
> terms of thos
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
> of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who are.
> >From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel
[I'm not subcribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
> > collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
> > I tend to prefer the author's opin
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
> collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
> I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations.
The author's opinion
29 matches
Mail list logo
