On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:01:45PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Probably all Linux binary drivers *are* compiled using GPL'd header files,
> > and thus are themselves subject to the GPL.
>
> I doubt that there is a consensus that simply compiling something with
> a GPL header
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 09:01:45PM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote:
Mark wrote:
Probably all Linux binary drivers *are* compiled using GPL'd header files,
and thus are themselves subject to the GPL.
I doubt that there is a consensus that simply compiling something with
a GPL header necessarily
Mark wrote:
> Probably all Linux binary drivers *are* compiled using GPL'd header files,
> and thus are themselves subject to the GPL.
I doubt that there is a consensus that simply compiling something with
a GPL header necessarily and always subjects it to the GPL. See your lawyer.
--
Zan Lynx wrote:
That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used
for ndiswrapper, for example. That would not make the Windows net
drivers derived code of the Linux kernel. ndiswrapper, yes it would be.
Binary driver blobs, no.
The Windows net drivers are not (we believe)
On 31/3/2005, at 08:30, John Pearson wrote:
E.g.: suppose there are 2 snack bars within 100 yards of a school; one
is out of sight, across an intersection and down a side street, and one
is clearly visible across an empty lot. For years the lot has been
unfenced and, human nature being what it
On 31/3/2005, at 08:30, John Pearson wrote:
E.g.: suppose there are 2 snack bars within 100 yards of a school; one
is out of sight, across an intersection and down a side street, and one
is clearly visible across an empty lot. For years the lot has been
unfenced and, human nature being what it
Zan Lynx wrote:
That does not really make sense, as the driver model code could be used
for ndiswrapper, for example. That would not make the Windows net
drivers derived code of the Linux kernel. ndiswrapper, yes it would be.
Binary driver blobs, no.
The Windows net drivers are not (we believe)
Mark wrote:
Probably all Linux binary drivers *are* compiled using GPL'd header files,
and thus are themselves subject to the GPL.
I doubt that there is a consensus that simply compiling something with
a GPL header necessarily and always subjects it to the GPL. See your lawyer.
--
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Since the GPL permits their removal, removing them cannot
> > be circumventing
> > the GPL. Since the GPL is the only license and the license
> > permits you to
> > remove them, they cannot be a license enforcement mechanism.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
Since the GPL permits their removal, removing them cannot
be circumventing
the GPL. Since the GPL is the only license and the license
permits you to
remove them, they cannot be a license enforcement mechanism. How can
On Mar 31, 2005, at 07:34, linux-os wrote:
Sure it does. Before the GPL-only stuff the only problem one
would have with a proprietary module, i.e., one that didn't
contain the GPL "license" notice, was that the kernel would
be marked "tainted". Everything would still work.
Wait, you realize that
On Thu, March 31, 2005 7:34 am, linux-os said:
>
> Sure it does. Before the GPL-only stuff the only problem one would
> have with a proprietary module, i.e., one that didn't contain
> the GPL "license" notice, was that the kernel would be marked
> "tainted". Everything would still work.
>
> With
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Sean wrote:
On Wed, March 30, 2005 2:57 pm, linux-os said:
Yes. And this would show that whomever did that already violated the
intent of the GPL by adding restrictions to use. NotGood(tm).
Dick,
You are so full of shit. There are no additonal restrictions, just the
On Wed, March 30, 2005 2:57 pm, linux-os said:
> Yes. And this would show that whomever did that already violated the
> intent of the GPL by adding restrictions to use. NotGood(tm).
Dick,
You are so full of shit. There are no additonal restrictions, just the
restrictions of the GPL; period.
On Wed, March 30, 2005 2:57 pm, linux-os said:
Yes. And this would show that whomever did that already violated the
intent of the GPL by adding restrictions to use. NotGood(tm).
Dick,
You are so full of shit. There are no additonal restrictions, just the
restrictions of the GPL; period.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Sean wrote:
On Wed, March 30, 2005 2:57 pm, linux-os said:
Yes. And this would show that whomever did that already violated the
intent of the GPL by adding restrictions to use. NotGood(tm).
Dick,
You are so full of shit. There are no additonal restrictions, just the
On Thu, March 31, 2005 7:34 am, linux-os said:
Sure it does. Before the GPL-only stuff the only problem one would
have with a proprietary module, i.e., one that didn't contain
the GPL license notice, was that the kernel would be marked
tainted. Everything would still work.
With the
On Mar 31, 2005, at 07:34, linux-os wrote:
Sure it does. Before the GPL-only stuff the only problem one
would have with a proprietary module, i.e., one that didn't
contain the GPL license notice, was that the kernel would
be marked tainted. Everything would still work.
Wait, you realize that the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:15:01AM -0500, linux-os wrote
[snip]
>
> In the United States there is something called "restraint of trade".
> Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced
> with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one
> would have to buy a
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously
available and then they were changed to something more restrictive,
I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court.
They're still available.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> It _is_ the intent behind the GPL though, they wrote the GPL and said so
> numerous times, so it will have its importance if someone puts that part
> of the GPL to the test.
Note that for judges in many countries, intent matters.
Intent might not
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
> If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously
> available and then they were changed to something more restrictive,
> I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court.
They're still available. Just download an older version
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:42PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Sorry, but an /interfase/ is there to do exactly that. It can be placed
> under copyright protection as code, but /using/ it just can't be considered
> a derived work. It makes no sense that if I get a description (docu,
> example
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> Since the GPL permits their removal, removing them cannot be
> circumventing
> the GPL. Since the GPL is the only license and the license permits you to
> remove them, they cannot be a license enforcement mechanism. How can
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 11:00:30AM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
Since the GPL permits their removal, removing them cannot be
circumventing
the GPL. Since the GPL is the only license and the license permits you to
remove them, they cannot be a license enforcement mechanism. How can you
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:31:42PM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Sorry, but an /interfase/ is there to do exactly that. It can be placed
under copyright protection as code, but /using/ it just can't be considered
a derived work. It makes no sense that if I get a description (docu,
example
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously
available and then they were changed to something more restrictive,
I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court.
They're still available. Just download an older version of
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Olivier Galibert wrote:
It _is_ the intent behind the GPL though, they wrote the GPL and said so
numerous times, so it will have its importance if someone puts that part
of the GPL to the test.
Note that for judges in many countries, intent matters.
Intent might not
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, linux-os wrote:
If there is documented proof that those symbols were previously
available and then they were changed to something more restrictive,
I think one would prevail if a complaint were brought in court.
They're still available.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 07:15:01AM -0500, linux-os wrote
[snip]
In the United States there is something called restraint of trade.
Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced
with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one
would have to buy a license or
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The GPL explicitly permits you to modify the code as you wish, and this
> > includes removing any restriction or enforcement type code.
> Yeah, sure, one could remove the technological enforcement, but IIRC the
> thread also brought up that
Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> I think it really depends on the APIs implemented. Anything based
> on the sysfs code, even if only using the APIs, will probably be
> found to be a derivative work (NOTE: IANAL) because the sysfs API
> is so very different from everything else.
On Tue, March 29, 2005 7:15 am, linux-os said:
> In the United States there is something called "restraint of trade".
> Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced
> with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one
> would have to buy a license or kiss
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:56 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
some functionality,
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:56 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
some functionality,
On Tue, March 29, 2005 7:15 am, linux-os said:
In the United States there is something called restraint of trade.
Suppose there was a long-time facility or API that got replaced
with one that was highly restrictive. To use the new facility, one
would have to buy a license or kiss somebody or
Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
I think it really depends on the APIs implemented. Anything based
on the sysfs code, even if only using the APIs, will probably be
found to be a derivative work (NOTE: IANAL) because the sysfs API
is so very different from everything else. Other
On Mar 28, 2005, at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
The GPL explicitly permits you to modify the code as you wish, and this
includes removing any restriction or enforcement type code.
Yeah, sure, one could remove the technological enforcement, but IIRC the
thread also brought up that you
Mark Fortescue wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> If you read the Linux Kernel header file "linux/module.h", there is a
> section about Licenses. If "Proprietary" licences are not leagal, then why
> are they supported ?
Because it does want to let module authors tell the truth, however bleak.
The GPL is
On 03/29/05 10:37:52AM +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
> >On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 10:28 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:52:20PM +, Mark Fortescue wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am writing a "Proprietry" driver module for a "Proprietry" PCI card and
> >>>I have
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:01:27PM -0800, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 20:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > If after removed, that's not what udev is set up to do, sorry.
>
> There's no way to either a) Hack udev.conf to always create a node with
> a certain major and minor
No.
> or b)
Aaron Gyes wrote:
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 20:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
What do you mean by "static"? Something that persists over a reboot?
Or after the device is removed?
Forgot to clarify. Create a node for something that's not in sysfs, with
udev.
At least in Fedora, /etc/udev/makedevices.d or
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 20:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> What do you mean by "static"? Something that persists over a reboot?
> Or after the device is removed?
Forgot to clarify. Create a node for something that's not in sysfs, with
udev.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 20:45 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> If after removed, that's not what udev is set up to do, sorry.
There's no way to either a) Hack udev.conf to always create a node with
a certain major and minor or b) A way to make sysfs trick udev?
I'll kind of need to do this for nvidia and
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:03:29PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing
> > the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code.
> > As such, the class_simple code
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:28:31PM -0800, Aaron Gyes wrote:
>
> In other news: How do I get udev to create a static node?
What do you mean by "static"? Something that persists over a reboot?
Or after the device is removed?
If reboot, mount your /dev on a disk-backed filesystem, not a ramfs or
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> I hope the above explanation is acceptable. If you have further
> questions, please do not hesitate to ask. And I would personally like
> to thank you for your civil tone. My current inbox reflects the rants
> of people without such civility
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing
> the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code.
> As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need
> for it. And as such,
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:12 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sul, 2005-03-27 at 14:53, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > > Are you sure? It is perfectly legal to relicense things if you own the
> > > copyright. As long as he never distributes his GPL version
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:52:37PM +0100, Mark Fortescue wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> If you read the Linux Kernel header file "linux/module.h", there is a
> section about Licenses. If "Proprietary" licences are not leagal, then why
> are they supported ?
They are not "supported" in any sense of the
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:04:37PM -0800, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:12 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, that is not the general consensus at all. Please search the
> > archives and the web for summaries of this discussion topic the last
> > time it came up.
> >
> > greg k-h
>
>
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 10:28 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:52:20PM +, Mark Fortescue wrote:
I am writing a "Proprietry" driver module for a "Proprietry" PCI card and
I have found that I can't use SYSFS on Linux-2.6.10.
Why ?.
What ever gave you the
On Mar 28, 2005, at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
The GPL explicitly permits you to modify the code as you wish, and this
includes removing any restriction or enforcement type code.
Yeah, sure, one could remove the technological enforcement, but IIRC the
thread also brought up that you _still_
> The GPL is a distribution license, it doesn't really matter what you do
> *internally* with GPL code. It might be a DMCA violation in the USSA but
> thats because the law is broken.
You can't violate the DMCA on a GPL'd work. At least, if there's a way
to
do, I couldn't find it. See
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 17:22 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
> > wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux?
>
> Not what I said.
>
Good, so you most likely misunderstood me.
OK, I've had enough of being devil's
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:56 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
> > wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
> > some functionality, that you make, and it just
> So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
> wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux?
Not what I said.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:12 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> No, that is not the general consensus at all. Please search the
> archives and the web for summaries of this discussion topic the last
> time it came up.
>
> greg k-h
Hi. I've searched the archives about this stuff. It looks like you
attempted
On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
some functionality, that you make, and it just happens to need
some kind of operating system to work. Does that make
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:43 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
> > Writing code that needs wrappers is not derived work, if that code can
> > also have wrappers for BSD, QNX and perhaps Windows.
>
> Just because it works with another O.S. doesn't mean it is not derived
> from Linux code. Good grief.
> Writing code that needs wrappers is not derived work, if that code can
> also have wrappers for BSD, QNX and perhaps Windows.
Just because it works with another O.S. doesn't mean it is not derived
from Linux code. Good grief. Try your lawyer, or at least a Google
search for something like
Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
[...]
> > Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
> > but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
> > pieces, one under GPL, the other
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Mark Fortescue wrote:
> If you read the Linux Kernel header file "linux/module.h", there is a
> section about Licenses. If "Proprietary" licences are not leagal, then why
> are they supported ?
>
> The implication of providing support for them in the header file is that
> it
Hi Greg,
If you read the Linux Kernel header file "linux/module.h", there is a
section about Licenses. If "Proprietary" licences are not leagal, then why
are they supported ?
The implication of providing support for them in the header file is that
it is leagal to create and supply them.
I am
> What used to be done outside the kernel, the only reasonable
> place to do it, has now been moved inside the kernel for no
> other reason but isolation.
I would not complain as much if nvidia was "more userspace" so
that bug reports could be more valid than they are currently,
when they are
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:31:53AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> >> > How do you define "proven in court"?
> >> >
> >> > Decided by an US judge based on US laws?
> >> > Decided by a German judge based on German laws?
> >> > Decided by a Chinese judge based on Chinese laws?
> >> > ...
> >>
>
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:34 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, I don't think that the GPL is that powerful to affect things not
> > linked directly with it
>
> the problem with kernel modules is.. that you actually create quite a
> few lines of code directly from the kernel (via the
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 08:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Following the flock in this GPL issue insulates you from
> many future changes in the kernel. Major portions of the
> module code has already been rewritten to erect a solid
> barrier, marking what's
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> > And then the user want to upgrade the 2.0 kernel that shipped with this
> > box although the company that made the hardware went bankrupt some years
> > ago.
> >
> > If the user has the source of the driver, he can port the driver or hire
> > someone
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
pieces, one under GPL, the other not, and leave the
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2005-03-27 at 14:53, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Are you sure? It is perfectly legal to relicense things if you own the
> > copyright. As long as he never distributes his GPL version I don't see
> > why he should have a problem.
>
> The GPL is a
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
> but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
> pieces, one under GPL, the other not, and leave the linking to the end
> user.
>
> Sure,
>> > How do you define "proven in court"?
>> >
>> > Decided by an US judge based on US laws?
>> > Decided by a German judge based on German laws?
>> > Decided by a Chinese judge based on Chinese laws?
>> > ...
>>
>> OK, I was talking about US courts since that case was done in the US.
>And a
>> > Should NVIDIA be forced to give up their secrets to all their
>> > competitors because some over zealous developers say so?
>
>nVidia doesn't want to tell, that is their decision to make.
Well, they /could/, as to prove they are not cheating...(if they really don't)
-
To unsubscribe from
How do you define proven in court?
Decided by an US judge based on US laws?
Decided by a German judge based on German laws?
Decided by a Chinese judge based on Chinese laws?
...
OK, I was talking about US courts since that case was done in the US.
And a court decision in e.g. the
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
pieces, one under GPL, the other not, and leave the linking to the end
user.
Sure,
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2005-03-27 at 14:53, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Are you sure? It is perfectly legal to relicense things if you own the
copyright. As long as he never distributes his GPL version I don't see
why he should have a problem.
The GPL is a distribution
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
pieces, one under GPL, the other not, and leave the
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Aaron Gyes wrote:
And then the user want to upgrade the 2.0 kernel that shipped with this
box although the company that made the hardware went bankrupt some years
ago.
If the user has the source of the driver, he can port the driver or hire
someone to port the
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 08:12 -0500, linux-os wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Following the flock in this GPL issue insulates you from
many future changes in the kernel. Major portions of the
module code has already been rewritten to erect a solid
barrier, marking what's in
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:34 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Anyway, I don't think that the GPL is that powerful to affect things not
linked directly with it
the problem with kernel modules is.. that you actually create quite a
few lines of code directly from the kernel (via the headers).
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:31:53AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
How do you define proven in court?
Decided by an US judge based on US laws?
Decided by a German judge based on German laws?
Decided by a Chinese judge based on Chinese laws?
...
OK, I was talking about US
What used to be done outside the kernel, the only reasonable
place to do it, has now been moved inside the kernel for no
other reason but isolation.
I would not complain as much if nvidia was more userspace so
that bug reports could be more valid than they are currently,
when they are
Hi Greg,
If you read the Linux Kernel header file linux/module.h, there is a
section about Licenses. If Proprietary licences are not leagal, then why
are they supported ?
The implication of providing support for them in the header file is that
it is leagal to create and supply them.
I am
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Mark Fortescue wrote:
If you read the Linux Kernel header file linux/module.h, there is a
section about Licenses. If Proprietary licences are not leagal, then why
are they supported ?
The implication of providing support for them in the header file is that
it is leagal
Steven Rostedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 21:54 -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
[...]
Wrong. You are free to do whatever you like in the privacy of your home,
but not distribute the result. So you could very well distribute both
pieces, one under GPL, the other not, and
Writing code that needs wrappers is not derived work, if that code can
also have wrappers for BSD, QNX and perhaps Windows.
Just because it works with another O.S. doesn't mean it is not derived
from Linux code. Good grief. Try your lawyer, or at least a Google
search for something like
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:43 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
Writing code that needs wrappers is not derived work, if that code can
also have wrappers for BSD, QNX and perhaps Windows.
Just because it works with another O.S. doesn't mean it is not derived
from Linux code. Good grief. Try your
On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
some functionality, that you make, and it just happens to need
some kind of operating system to work. Does that make
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:12 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
No, that is not the general consensus at all. Please search the
archives and the web for summaries of this discussion topic the last
time it came up.
greg k-h
Hi. I've searched the archives about this stuff. It looks like you
attempted to
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux?
Not what I said.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:56 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2005, at 19:21, Steven Rostedt wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux? If there's
some functionality, that you make, and it just happens
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 17:22 -0800, Paul Jackson wrote:
So you are saying that a stand alone section of code, that needs
wrappers to work with Linux is a derived work of Linux?
Not what I said.
Good, so you most likely misunderstood me.
OK, I've had enough of being devil's advocate. I'm
The GPL is a distribution license, it doesn't really matter what you do
*internally* with GPL code. It might be a DMCA violation in the USSA but
thats because the law is broken.
You can't violate the DMCA on a GPL'd work. At least, if there's a way
to
do, I couldn't find it. See some
On Mar 28, 2005, at 20:53, David Schwartz wrote:
The GPL explicitly permits you to modify the code as you wish, and this
includes removing any restriction or enforcement type code.
Yeah, sure, one could remove the technological enforcement, but IIRC the
thread also brought up that you _still_
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 10:28 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 05:52:20PM +, Mark Fortescue wrote:
I am writing a Proprietry driver module for a Proprietry PCI card and
I have found that I can't use SYSFS on Linux-2.6.10.
Why ?.
What ever gave you the impression
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:04:37PM -0800, Aaron Gyes wrote:
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:12 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
No, that is not the general consensus at all. Please search the
archives and the web for summaries of this discussion topic the last
time it came up.
greg k-h
Hi. I've
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 05:52:37PM +0100, Mark Fortescue wrote:
Hi Greg,
If you read the Linux Kernel header file linux/module.h, there is a
section about Licenses. If Proprietary licences are not leagal, then why
are they supported ?
They are not supported in any sense of the word.
The
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 15:12 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
On Sul, 2005-03-27 at 14:53, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Are you sure? It is perfectly legal to relicense things if you own the
copyright. As long as he never distributes his GPL version I don't
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 19:33 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
Also, the code has undergone a rewrite, fixing many issues, and changing
the way things work to tie more closely into the main driver core code.
As such, the class_simple code is now just gone, there is no such need
for it. And as such, the
1 - 100 of 193 matches
Mail list logo
