On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 09:20:00AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Otherwise, it could simply be a configuration list that is parsed by the
> > device, or a memory initialization image, or a dispatch table, or
> > something similar, and rejecting such things on the basis that they are
> > *suspected*
On Sul, 2004-04-18 at 07:52, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> So your advisor is saying that such a work is undistributable under the
> GPL, or are they saying that it is not distributable at all?
They are saying that in their reading of the law it would be better
if the firmware was kept seperate. Lawyers
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 08:16:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2004-04-17 at 19:40, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> > Of course, if the legal advice you refer to was specifically aimed at
> > the firmware scenario, where you have a blob of who-knows-what that does
> > not execute on the host embedded
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 20:46, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:33:16PM +0200, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> >
> > I don't think such a complicated scheme is needed? Just encode the
> > microcode version in the filename and try to load any supported version,
> > from most to least preferr
On Sad, 2004-04-17 at 19:40, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> Of course, if the legal advice you refer to was specifically aimed at
> the firmware scenario, where you have a blob of who-knows-what that does
> not execute on the host embedded into a driver binary, then I'm not one
> to argue with that.
It w
--- Michel Dänzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 23:02, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 22:00, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > >
> > >>This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use
> userland-loadable
> > >>firmware.
> > >
>
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:33:16PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>
> I don't think such a complicated scheme is needed? Just encode the
> microcode version in the filename and try to load any supported version,
> from most to least preferred?
I think that's what I meant. Point being, have the ker
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 09:36:24AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> This is the answer I was given by lawyers. The analogy they use is
> an interesting but sensible one. If I add a chapter to a book it is
> clearly a derivative work, if I bundle the one work with a second
> pamphlet containing the chap
On Sat, 2004-04-17 at 07:44, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:03:04AM +0200, Michel DÃnzer wrote:
>
> > > It allows for the microcode to be updated without replacing the kernel,
> > > which is not a bad thing anyway.
>
> But changing the microcode would change the driver->chip
On Sad, 2004-04-17 at 06:44, Ryan Underwood wrote:
> 3) Neither of these is ok, must go into non-free because binary-only
> firmware doesnt meet DFSG (no source) regardless of its license. Either
> whole driver must go into non-free, or a crippled driver is provided in
> main and a userspace loade
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 03:03:04AM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > It allows for the microcode to be updated without replacing the kernel,
> > which is not a bad thing anyway.
But changing the microcode would change the driver->chip interface
anyway. So you'd have to update the driver too. Ke
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 23:02, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Michel DÃnzer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 22:00, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> >
> >>This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
> >>firmware.
> >
> > Sigh, is this really necessary? :\
> It allows for the microc
Keith Whitwell wrote:
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
My changes are GPL licensed (of course).
The r128 module is BSD licensed (though I thought it was supposed to be
dual BSD/GPL) - are you willing to reconsider?
Yes, I'll be happy to BSD license this; it's not as if it's really very
much material, s
Michel DÃnzer wrote:
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 22:00, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
firmware.
Sigh, is this really necessary? :\
It allows for the microcode to be updated without replacing the kernel,
which is not a bad thing anyway
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 22:00, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
> firmware.
Sigh, is this really necessary? :\ Anyway, I'll offer some technical
comments.
> It's completely untested (since I don't *have* an r128, I don't
> see any wa
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
> firmware. It's completely untested (since I don't *have* an r128, I don't
> see any way to test it), but I bet it'll work; the firmware loading interface
> seems remarkably easy
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
firmware. It's completely untested (since I don't *have* an r128, I don't
see any way to test it), but I bet it'll work; the firmware loading interface
seems remarkably easy to use.
Following that (in th
This is a diff for drivers/char/drm to make r128 use userland-loadable
firmware. It's completely untested (since I don't *have* an r128, I don't
see any way to test it), but I bet it'll work; the firmware loading interface
seems remarkably easy to use.
Following that (in the form of a diff) is th
18 matches
Mail list logo
