Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a better solution is to install an anti-virus.
One has to be crazy today using windows without an anti-virus.
Tsahi, I think you missed Nadav's point: he is not using windows, so
he has no use for antivirus. He still gets those bloody emails in his
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a better solution is to install an anti-virus.
One has to be crazy today using windows without an anti-virus.
Tsahi, I think you missed Nadav's point: he is not using
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
Each time I see such a thread I remind myself that I am either
unusually lucky or I must be doing sth right (for a change). While I
get a lot of emails and I am subscribed to quite a few mailing lists
Here's my complete rule, in all it's splendor (ugliness, actually)
Sorry, Omer, about continuing to spam this mailing list on this issue -
but others keep bringing it up again and again...
IMHO this discussion on topic:
Someone (a home network) with a linux mail server serving MS
OK, since people don't see the tongue in my cheek, I decided to review the
recent postings for violation of obscure rules. Since I determined that
rule R74212.36(e)[f]{g.1} has been violated, I decided to notify the list
about the violation of this rule.
The rule is that the Subject line must
So, Nadav, if I want to post something at linux-il, without you knowing about
it, should I simply add the following lines to my message?
1
0
Z0gSPTNEI2YAPiu7YYJW5q94cmMWly6hsWNpffE
(oops. if it works, you won't answer... this smells like Godel.)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001, Dan Kenigsberg wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
So, Nadav, if I want to post something at linux-il, without you knowing about
it, should I simply add the following lines to my message?
1
0
Z0gSPTNEI2YAPiu7YYJW5q94cmMWly6hsWNpffE
No need for these 1 and 0
Yup, got if from our dear David - got even 3 copies of it..
Damn fucking Windows MCSE sys admins - can't even install an anti virus on
their mail servers?
Hmm, I wonder if it runs on wine ;)
On Wednesday 05 December 2001 15:38 pm, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
Don't open the attached file on
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Nadav Har'El
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 3:54 PM
To: Shachar Shemesh
Cc: David Tabachnikov; Linux IL
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001, Shachar Shemesh wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
Don't open
This message was rather appropriate for the Hackers-IL mailing list.
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
So, Nadav, if I want to post something at linux-il, without you knowing about
it, should I simply add the following lines to my message?
1
0
Z0gS ... mutilated to make the
NH Well, TV and radio commercials also tell you (for example) that when the
NH in hamichraz hakaful (or whatever they call it) you are allowed 2 bids,
NH your chances of winning are doubled. like a double in shesh-besh. What
NH a load of crock.
Yeah, and I heard that if you pay double price for
AS If you write free and GPL-compatible software, you're free from
AS the burden of lawyers. If you want to be a smartass and to try
Which means GPL software is only for those who writes GPL software. That
gets as free as Iranian law - if you like it, you are certainly very
free and happy in
Nadav Har'El [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote about RE: making a non-GPLed module:
I don't agree. I can't publish a sequeul to Gone with the Wind
under my name and using the original characters. The copyright
owners would sue me and win (this had
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AFAIK prison terms cannot be given for any license violation. You must
violate some criminal law to get this. Unauthorized distribution of
software (which is not the same as failing to comply with EULA) may very
well be one of the things you can get in jail for.
I
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
I believe the TV and radio commercials that threaten jail terms for
using one EULA to install multiple copies of a s/w product inside your
small business deal with license violations, not unauthorized
The MOSIX case is interesting to me personally (it probably has little
to do with my original question though). I would really like to go
over what transcribed there in my spare time (TM, and don't mess with
it ;-)). Is there a public account on the web somewhere? I will be
grateful for pointer
Nadav Har'El [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Free software is about slightly more than having source: it's also
about being able to use the source for whatever you want (not just
for your personal pleasure) without needed to have a battery of
lawyers explain to you what you can, and what you can't
Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I do not think that the argument you describe will stand in a court
of law. on two cases that I know, that were on the way to the court
house, the parties eventually settled out side the court by the
violating party agreeing to distribute the non GLPed
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
way) and fier-ness (if you release something under GPL you can't
find oneday somebody else becoming a millinaire from the fruits your
work).
...
ESR? He did contribute a lot, but the valuation of LNUX
Oleg Goldshmidt ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org Wrote:
One recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by
hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules.
We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do anything illegal:
It is true that
At this point I have a follow-up question. Assume for now that a
binary-only module without modification of the kernel itself is OK.
Is it equally (read: to the same degree) OK to modify the kernel to
work with my module, and to release the patch to the kernel under GPL,
keeping the module
On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux kernel and therefor can only
| Binary only kernel modules are a clear violation of the GPL (since they
| link to the kernel image, much like linking is done with a loadable
| run time library). However, Linux Torvalds have expressed his
| agreement for the existance of binary only kernel modules as
long they
|
On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux kernel and therefor can
of the time, but you can't fool mom.
- Original Message -
From: Herouth Maoz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Again, I am no lawyer
There is a discussion about GPL related issues in the Linux-IL mailing
list, and since my point is not Linux-specific, I suggest to move the
discussion (if any) to Hackers-IL.
Everyone, who read the history of FSP, knows that Stallman started the
free software idea after having encountered a
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux kernel and therefor can only be published under
Stallman's Printer Driver Test, as formulated above, has two
non-obvious
consequences:
1. If GPLed/LGPLed code is used in embedded devices, then a
way needs to
be provided for the customer to update the code.
Such a requirement would have been helpful in overcoming
Y2K problems
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux kernel
28, 2001 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Oleg Goldshmidt ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org Wrote:
One recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by
hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules.
We in the MOSIX team did
Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux
9:45 AM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Oded Arbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
I do not know what was the original status of MOSIX or what the
allegations
were, but the setting you described here will violate the GPL as it is
usually interpeted (again : IANAL and I don't think
This is in reply to the various posts by Amnon Shlioh. he said a lot of
things, most of which I can sum up in this sentence : Yes, we violated the
GPL - but we don't care because licenses can not be enforced in a court of
law, because a court of law rules by laws, not by contracts.
This
: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
On 2001 November 28 ,Wednesday 11:59, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
butterflies.
- Original Message -
From: Oleg Goldshmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Amnon Shiloh [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Amnon Shiloh wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
...
The whole GPL-based arguments are irrelevant: we were distributing
a piece of software that was written and copyrighted solely by us,
we did not copy anybody else's code (including implicitly due to compilation
Ladies and Gents,
To paraphrase some unrecalled cowboys movie: when someone begins telling me what I
can or cannot do with code I wrote I reach for my gun I'm pretty sure I would
feel the same under a similar situation. On the other hand, the people who invested
the time to write GPL
: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 2:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do anything illegal:
It is true that parts of our software did not comply with the GPL
Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Again, I am no lawyer, but the official GNU/FSF standpoint as I
understand is that the fact that module links against a GPLed work
(the Linux kernel) means in is considered a derived work of the
Linux kernel and therefor can only be published
Finally some interesting words in the boring
I agree ;-)
Indeed, if you give away (or sell) patches to whatever
copyrighted software
(in this case, the Linux kernel), and the patches only include
your own code,
100% your code, I see no reason how the license of the original
Tzahi Fadida [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
I am sorry for me being ignorant but this discussion is interesting.
You are essentially saying that even if you break the GPL license, no one
can sue you in Israel?
As explained, one can only be sued for license-violation in relation to
items that are
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote about RE: making a non-GPLed module:
I don't agree. I can't publish a sequeul to Gone with the Wind under my name and
using the original characters. The copyright owners would sue me and win (this had
happend in the US, btw). For this reason I
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Finally some interesting words in the boring what-does-the-GPL-*really*-means
saga (this whole thread almost convinced me to eschew the GPL and start using
some sort of BSD or X license... People seem to be forgetting that free
software was meant to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001, Omer Zak wrote about Re: making a non-GPLed module:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Nadav Har'El wrote:
Finally some interesting words in the boring what-does-the-GPL-*really*-means
saga (this whole thread almost convinced me to eschew the GPL and start using
some sort
NH or X license... People seem to be forgetting that free software
NH was meant to free you from needing to consulting lawyers before
NH you can see/use some software's code...).
Huh. You wish. If you are not in GPL/GPL situation, you better go for
some MS-EULAs - at least after you paid them
TF Also, Mosix is developed by you at huji which is a respectable
TF institute. Wouldn't it be immoral of you to exercise this kind
TF of conduct in the university. Not to mention the poor example
Well, it we start to talk about morality, I'm not sure it's morally right
to force anybody to give
OA like I said - this is BS. if I do that and the BSA puts their
OA filthy paws on me, I face fines upto 250,000 NIS and upto 5
OA years in prison (IIRC).
AFAIK prison terms cannot be given for any license violation. You must
violate some criminal law to get this. Unauthorized distribution of
OZ The question of whether to choose GPL or another license
OZ eventually boils down to the issue whether you want to keep the
OZ end-user of your software empowered or not.
Or you might say whether you want to force the user of your software to
understand freedom and being empowered exactly as
OA If your binary that links against GPLed code (be it dynamic or
OA static linking) does anything interesting and useful w/o using
OA the GPLed code (in your example - reading and composing mail),
OA then it is _not_ a derived work of the GPLed code.
On my experience (based on observing some
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
One possible solution to this problem is to create a linking layer
between your module and the kernel, and make that layer GPL. This allows
anyone who wants to run a crazy kernel of their own to make sure they
can still work with your product,
I would like to thank everybody who responded. Thanks for the
suggestions, the thoughts, the pointers. I was aware of most technical
issues, my main interest was in the legal angle.
At this point I have a follow-up question. Assume for now that a
binary-only module without modification of the
Oleg Goldshmidt ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org Wrote:
One recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by
hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules.
We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do anything illegal:
It is true that parts of
Subject: Re: making a non-GPLed module
Oleg Goldshmidt ogoldshmidt(at-nospam)computer.org Wrote:
One recent controversy involved MOSIX, who allegedly violated GPL by
hacking the kernel itself rather than sticking to writing modules.
We in the MOSIX team did not violate any copyright or do
hi gilad,
| Binary only kernel modules are a clear violation of the GPL (since they
| link to the kernel image, much like linking is done with a loadable
| run time library). However, Linux Torvalds have expressed his
| agreement for the existance of binary only kernel modules as long they
|
Hi,
On Mon, 2001-11-26 at 02:03, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Let's say a company is considering making a kernel module out of
a piece of software. Never mind the reasons to make it a kernel module
- assume they are good and valid. There is no intention to sneak this
module into the mainstream
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Hi,
When you read the following, bare in mind one thing: I am not a lawyer
and I don't even play one on TV. Having said that, I did investiage this
issue quite a lot for reasons very similar to yours.
I am not a lawyer either. Furthermore - noone in my family is a
Let's say a company is considering making a kernel module out of
a piece of software. Never mind the reasons to make it a kernel module
- assume they are good and valid. There is no intention to sneak this
module into the mainstream kernel - it's an add-on. Suppose there is a
requirement to
Hi Oleg,
To make it short...
You can make a binary-only module without any problem AS LONG as you don't
modify the kernel sources itself (see the LWN story about symbols are not
changed every micro release)...
Now - it really depends how do u make this module. I would suggest that to do
Message-
From: Oleg Goldshmidt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 2:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: making a non-GPLed module
Let's say a company is considering making a kernel module out of
a piece of software. Never mind the reasons to make it a
kernel
59 matches
Mail list logo
