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 neces
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) c
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 is,
> 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 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 th
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 th
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
restrictio
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. A
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 lice
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 o
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 c
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 yo
> 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. Ot
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 somebod
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,
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 quit
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 found
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) A
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 l
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 an
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 i
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
t
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 at
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
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 wor
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
>
> 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 impressio
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_ could
> 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 so
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
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 ha
> 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 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 i
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. Tr
> 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 "co
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 no
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 i
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 por
> 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 tai
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 h
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 t
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 lin
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 distr
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 co
>> > 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 thi
Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mar 27, 2005, at 14:16, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> > So what? Sure, GPL'd drivers are easier for an end-user in that case.
> > What does that have to do with law?
> Well, under most interpretations of the GPL, you are *NOT* allowed to
> even _link_ non-GPL code
The fact that Nvidia and ATI get away with it?
The choose to take a risk based upon a specific interpretation of the
boundary of a derivative work. Since the boundary is untested in law its
not certain who is right.
Plus the fact, that if somebody sues them, they just remove the drivers
from thei
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 14:30 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Well, under most interpretations of the GPL, you are *NOT* allowed to
> even _link_ non-GPL code with GPL code. (Basically, by distributing
> such a linked binary, you are certifying that you have permission to
> GPL the entire source-code an
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 03:39 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Your talking about something completely different. Yes, it is quite
> > explicit if you modify the source, and distribute it in binary only
> > form. I'm talking about writing a separate module that links with the
> > GPL code dynamically
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 06:54:52PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 00:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk 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
greg k-h writes:
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:30:20PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
>> That's the problem, it's not spelled out explicitly anywhere.
>> That file does not address the issue of whether a driver is
>> a "derived work". This is the part he should talk to a lawyer
>> about, right?
>
> How a
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 10:10:56AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> How about the fact that when you load a kernel module, it is linked
> into the main kernel image? The GPL explicitly states what needs to
> be done for code linked in.
oddly, the close nv driver has like 2.4MB if text in the kernel. i
s
On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 00:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:37:11PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >...
> > Wasn't this long ago proven in court that the license of headers can't
> > control the code that calls them. IIRC, it was with X Motif and making
> > free libraries fo
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:16:54AM -0800, 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 o
> > How about the fact that when you load a kernel module, it is linked into
> > the main kernel image? The GPL explicitly states what needs to be done
> > for code linked in.
> >
> I've always wondered about dynamically loaded modules (and libraries for
> that matter). The standard IANAL, but I'
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 01:37:11PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>...
> Wasn't this long ago proven in court that the license of headers can't
> control the code that calls them. IIRC, it was with X Motif and making
> free libraries for that. So, actually it was for a free solution for a
> non free
On Sun, 2005-03-27 at 10:10 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> How about the fact that when you load a kernel module, it is linked into
> the main kernel image? The GPL explicitly states what needs to be done
> for code linked in.
>
I've always wondered about dynamically loaded modules (and libraries for
t
El Sun, 27 Mar 2005 11:16:54 -0800,
Aaron Gyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> company that made the device? Should NVIDIA be forced to give up their
> secrets to all their competitors because some over zealous developers
> say so? Should the end-users of the current drivers be forced to lose
Is
Mark Fortescue wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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 ?.
>
> I am not modifing the Kernel/SYSFS code so I should be able, to use all
> the SYSFS/internal kernel function calls with
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 11:16:54AM -0800, 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 o
On Mar 27, 2005, at 14:16, Aaron Gyes wrote:
So what? Sure, GPL'd drivers are easier for an end-user in that case.
What does that have to do with law?
Well, under most interpretations of the GPL, you are *NOT* allowed to
even _link_ non-GPL code with GPL code. (Basically, by distributing such
a lin
> 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 driver (this "obscure piece of hardware"
>> If you are making a very specialist piece of equipment; not
>>...
>
>
>If the user has the source of the driver, he can port the driver or hire
>someone to port the driver (this "obscure piece of hardware" might also
>be an expensive piece of hardware).
I am happy that nvidia (to name one) pr
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 07:04:17PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Kyle Moffett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >
> > NOTE: I *strongly* discourage binary drivers. They're crap and
> > frustrate poor PowerPC users like me.
>
> I mostly agree - there is one case where I think they *migh
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:55:33PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2005, at 20:15, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> >How is what they are doing illegal? How it is even "bad"? They
> >obviously
> >can't give up their IP. Them providing binary modules wrapped in GPL
> >glue (so anyone can fix most kernel
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 10:30:20PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 19:20 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Anyway, this is news to me. How about putting it in the FAQ? Too
> > > politically charged?
> >
> > Why does it need to be in the FAQ, when the file COPYING in the main
> > kerne
* Kyle Moffett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> NOTE: I *strongly* discourage binary drivers. They're crap and
> frustrate poor PowerPC users like me.
I mostly agree - there is one case where I think they *might*
be acceptable; (and I think the original poster *may* fall
into this category).
If
On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:52, Dave Airlie wrote:
#GPL this e-mail my first C program,..
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
}
damn every C program is a derived work.. it just means you need to get
a better lawyer... more than likely American courts will be involved..
I suggest the Chewbacca defence[1] w
>
> This email is Copyright (C) 2005 Kyle Moffett.
>
> The remainder of this email is available under the GNU General Public
> License, version 2. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt for
> details.
> THE BELOW MAY NOT BE USED IN A BINARY DRIVER, SO DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT
> IT!
>
>
> Ok, so
On Mar 27, 2005, at 03:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I think that at the moment the general consensus is that it is ok to
use
the Linux kernel APIs (but not the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL ones) from binary
modules _if_ _and_ _only_ _if_ the driver was originally written
elsewhere
and ported to the Linux kern
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > BTW, to all you "But my drivers must be proprietary!" nerds out there,
> > take a look at 3ware, Adaptec, etc. They have _great_ hardware and yet
> > they release all of their drivers under the GPL. They get free updates
> > to n
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 license, it doesn't really matter what yo
On Sad, 2005-03-26 at 20:34, Lee Revell wrote:
> > What ever gave you the impression that it was legal to create a
> > "Proprietry" kernel driver for Linux in the first place.
>
> The fact that Nvidia and ATI get away with it?
The choose to take a risk based upon a specific interpretation of the
Previously Sean wrote:
> On Sat, March 26, 2005 12:52 pm, Mark Fortescue said:
> > In order to be able to use SYSFS to debug the driver during development
> > the way I would like to be able to do, I will have to temporally change
> > the module licence line to "GPL". When the development is finnis
On Sat, March 26, 2005 12:52 pm, Mark Fortescue said:
> Hi,
>
> 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 ?.
Because the people that contributed the code you want to use said so.
> I am not modifing the
> BTW, to all you "But my drivers must be proprietary!" nerds out there,
> take a look at 3ware, Adaptec, etc. They have _great_ hardware and yet
> they release all of their drivers under the GPL. They get free updates
> to new kernel APIs too!
Well, it boils down to the full sourcecode. NVidia
Lee wrote:
What ever gave you the impression that it was legal to create a
"Proprietry" kernel driver for Linux in the first place.
The fact that Nvidia and ATI get away with it?
The didn't write a Linux driver. They have multi-platform drivers that
work among other OS on Linux, too.
E.g. the N
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 at 10:28:28 -0800 Greg KH wrote:
> However, if you do wish to create a Linux driver, you _must_ abide by
> the legal requirements of the kernel, which I feel, along with every IP
> lawyer I have ever consulted, that it is not allowed to create a non-GPL
> compatible kernel modu
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 19:20 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anyway, this is news to me. How about putting it in the FAQ? Too
> > politically charged?
>
> Why does it need to be in the FAQ, when the file COPYING in the main
> kernel directory explicitly spells this out?
That's the problem, it's not sp
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 08:04:40PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 16:48 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:34:34PM -0500, 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 wr
On Mar 26, 2005, at 20:15, Aaron Gyes wrote:
How is what they are doing illegal? How it is even "bad"? They
obviously
can't give up their IP. Them providing binary modules wrapped in GPL
glue (so anyone can fix most kernel incompatabilities) is a good thing
for Linux. Many people and businesses wo
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 17:15 -0800, Aaron Gyes wrote:
> > So, the fact that someone else is doing something illegal, makes it
> > acceptable for you to do the same thing? Please, talk to a lawyer
> > about
> > this issue if you have _any_ questions.
>
> How is what they are doing illegal? How it is
> So, the fact that someone else is doing something illegal, makes it
> acceptable for you to do the same thing? Please, talk to a lawyer
> about
> this issue if you have _any_ questions.
How is what they are doing illegal? How it is even "bad"? They obviously
can't give up their IP. Them providi
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:34:34PM -0500, 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
>> > 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 that it was legal to create a
>> "Proprietry" kernel driver for Linux in the first place.
>
>The fact
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 th
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 that it was legal to create a
"Proprietry" kernel dri
Hi,
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 ?.
I am not modifing the Kernel/SYSFS code so I should be able, to use all
the SYSFS/internal kernel function calls without hinderence.
In order to be able to
98 matches
Mail list logo
