On Apr 26, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove
them.
What if one piece of firmware is licensed under:
* This file contains firmware data derived from proprietary unpublished
* source code, [...]
*
*
On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
* [...] this software is licensed to you
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 [...]
*
* Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances may you combine this
* software in any way with any other $PARTY software
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be
redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a
license that's not even compatible with GPLv2?
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
under your standards) with the other “derived from proprietary
unpublished source code”
Given that
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
under your standards) with the other
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B.
If you create work A that is
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled
On 04/29/2009 05:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29
source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in
2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license
notices were adjusted)
Look. I'm a patient
On 04/29/2009 10:26 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Given all the opinions you volunteered as to this problem, it was just
reasonable for me to assume that you were (i) as aware of the issue as
Red Hat legal is, and (ii) misguided as to its seriousness, for people
who take legal issues seriously
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
My psychic powers not withstanding, you really shouldn't make
assumptions.
As I wrote, I made them based on your opinions. I honestly didn't
expect you to go about making strong assertions without having the
faintest clue as to
10 matches
Mail list logo
