On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:01 +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 12:41 +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> > 2. As I have said many times, there is a popular program which the owners
> >released as GPL, solicited and added source code for new features
> >and bug fixes provided
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 12:41 +0200, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
> 2. As I have said many times, there is a popular program which the owners
>released as GPL, solicited and added source code for new features
>and bug fixes provided as GPL'ed code and then sold closed source
>licenses to
Quoting Gilad Ben-Yossef, from the post of Wed, 13 Dec:
>
>
> This might be a good time to mention that Ravia offices and Codefidence
> have launched a service centered about providing commerical product
yup, saw it on the DailyMuchta and told them about it of course.
--
Karma Police
Ira Abr
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 11:41:34AM +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> While this may or may not be the case, I do believe that a lot of people
> WILL, in fact, be angry if this route is abused.
The problem is that anger is nothing in a court of law, or in the normal
business world. Two examples:
1.
Sorry for reopening this.
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> There is no need for this. Kernel module communicate with user space
> applications (open or otherwise) via the system call interface (IOCTL,
> mmap, open...).
>
> Linus has made is specifically clear, in comment placed in the Linux
> kernel sour
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
So much as Linus can speak for the entire gang of kernel copyright
holders (and probably even if not because of estopel)
Isn't estopel only relevant once you tried to trial such claim and fail?
I doubt any such thing has happened (i.e. - a kernel
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Oron Peled wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 בDecember 2006 21:51, Peter wrote:
Speaking of sheduler, RTLinux took out some patents on just such a
sheduler and restricted RTLinux distribution based on that
This is 'solved' in that the RTLinux code is dual licensed.
You mixed
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Micha Feigin wrote:
Question is, is it enough that there is one non-GPL implementation I
can link against exporting the same API, does this now make the work
non-derived of the GPL API?
More to the point, does the API fall under the GPL or the results.
The answer is: i
On Wednesday, 13 בDecember 2006 21:51, Peter wrote:
> Speaking of sheduler, RTLinux took out some patents on just such a
> sheduler and restricted RTLinux distribution based on that
>
> This is 'solved' in that the RTLinux code is dual licensed.
You mixed patents with copyrights. RTLinux cod
On Wednesday, 13 בDecember 2006 11:30, Ira Abramov wrote:
> the company in question (and those of you who know who they are, know),
> Has promissed me to solve the issue. the problem was a proprietary
> kernel module that should have tainted the kernel and recieved a
> restricted set of symbols, bu
>
> If you DO NOT write plain vanilla C code to Posix libc specs and expect
> to fully use the advanced features offered by GPL-ONLY licensed
> extensions to libraries, and distribute binary that links against these,
> then you are in trouble even if there are 24 different implementations
> of
Sorry, sent this privately by mistake, linux-il doesn't work with the reply to
list option of sylpheed ...
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:52:50 +0200
From: Micha Feigin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ethical questi
The purpose of a license is to prevent the visit to a judge. Therefore
most of the discussions around licenses elaborated by comitee revolve
around what a judge *would* do and not around what he will do.
Because the chances to win a lawsuit are directly related to the depth
of the parties po
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> So much as Linus can speak for the entire gang of kernel copyright
> holders (and probably even if not because of estopel)
Isn't estopel only relevant once you tried to trial such claim and fail?
I doubt any such thing has happened (i.e. - a kernel developer trying to
sue
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I offered instead that they write a GPL module that allows access to
what they need in the kernel through IOCTLs and move their binary-only
blob to userspace. This was acceptable to them and I believe it's the
correct legal solution myself (correct me if I'm wrong)
W
Peter wrote:
It's nice to see that you are as polite as ever. Always refreshing to
see someone who spends so much time in understanding what others say,
and effort in making his objections so elegantly and tactfully heard.
> The intention is clear:
It is indeed.
> So I think that your thinking is
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
To my thinking - yes. If you create an interface that is independent of
the implementation, no-one using that interface can be said to be
derived work of the implementation.
Yes, that does mean that the GPL isn't as strong as we may hope/wish it
to be
Usual disclaimers apply. I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:26:46 +0200
> Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> They manage 1 and 2, they have a very good case for claiming that the
>> userspace tool is not a derived work of the
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:26:46 +0200
Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They manage 1 and 2, they have a very good case for claiming that the
> userspace tool is not a derived work of their kernel space driver, and
> thus not bound by the kernel module's license.
>
> Shachar
This goes in
Ira Abramov wrote:
> Quoting Ira Abramov, from the post of Thu, 30 Nov:
>
>> All Hypothetical...
>>
>
> well, it was a little white lie, if you didn't suspect :-)
>
> After double checking my legal status in any case, it turns out I am not
> under NDA at the time of this writing, but will b
Quoting Ira Abramov, from the post of Thu, 30 Nov:
> All Hypothetical...
well, it was a little white lie, if you didn't suspect :-)
After double checking my legal status in any case, it turns out I am not
under NDA at the time of this writing, but will be by the end of the
day, so I'll say this :
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:36 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> At least last time I checked, anyone that requested it got access to an
> FTP site with the sources for all modified user space utilities on
> SPLAT. This is technically a violation (GPL requires that commercial
> distribution offer the so
Meir Michanie wrote:
> How does checkpoint qualify in this matter.
>
"this matter" relates to binary kernel modules. As far as I know, it's
just another binary kernel module. I am not aware that they are using
any GPL only exports (though I really don't know).
> They sale the splat that is redha
How does checkpoint qualify in this matter.
They sale the splat that is redhat linux. Did anyone requested or got
their sources for the splat CD?
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> Ira Abramov wrote:
>> This is not exactly a GPL violation,
> I'm not sure you are right about this.
>
> Here's my take on thi
Ira Abramov wrote:
> This is not exactly a GPL violation,
I'm not sure you are right about this.
Here's my take on things. The kernel is GPL, which means that all
derived work of it needs to be GPL too, or it is infringing on the
kernel's copyright.
There are three approaches to understanding bin
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:29:36PM +0200, Ira Abramov wrote:
>
> say you had a client you worked for. One day over lunch, one of the guys
> of the R&D of a different product at the company tells you how they
> circumvent the kernel checks to load a non-GPL module and get all the
> symbols a GPL mo
community being more important, any juridical method to
prohibit you from reporting the crime would be questionable, and
anyhow it'd turn into a practical question for lawyers rather than an
ethical question for hackers.
On 11/30/06, Ira Abramov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
and what wo
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:29:36PM +0200, Ira Abramov wrote:
> say you had a client you worked for. One day over lunch, one of the
> guys of the R&D of a different product at the company tells you how
> they circumvent the kernel checks to load a non-GPL module and get
> all the symbols a GPL modu
All Hypothetical...
say you had a client you worked for. One day over lunch, one of the guys
of the R&D of a different product at the company tells you how they
circumvent the kernel checks to load a non-GPL module and get all the
symbols a GPL module gets.
This is not exactly a GPL violation, ho
29 matches
Mail list logo
