On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 01:07:30AM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
> disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
> with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
> employment as a
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
employment as a programmer that the employer's product is
inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade
[Pavel Machek]
> Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Someone on debian-devel thought of this, but went one further: change
the gzip header magic so that only a "GPL-enabled" gzip can decompress
it.
I wonder how the zlib maintainers (zlib is not GPL) would feel about
having to add
Hi!
> [Christopher Friesen]
> > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
> > to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
> > only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
>
> Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL
Hi!
[Christopher Friesen]
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well,
[Pavel Machek]
Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Someone on debian-devel thought of this, but went one further: change
the gzip header magic so that only a "GPL-enabled" gzip can decompress
it.
I wonder how the zlib maintainers (zlib is not GPL) would feel about
having to add
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
employment as a programmer that the employer's product is
inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 01:07:30AM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's
disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked
with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking
employment as a programmer
> Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
> version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
> havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
The serial API had to change in 2.2.15. I know it broke the lucent driver,
Hi!
> Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
> version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
> havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
Search [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, it was there.
an Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dr. Kelsey Hudson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)
Subject: Re: Fasttrak100 questions...
Hi!
> > You ar
Hi!
Where can this Lucent driver be found? The one I use with my Thinkpad is
version 5.68. It comes as a loadable module (ltmodem.o) with no serial.c, and I
havent gotten it to work with any kernel later than 2.2.14.
Search [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, it was there.
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 10:42:29PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
>From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
>code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:21:26PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >Date:Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
> >From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
>From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
> the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines
Date:Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
> modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
> and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get
> This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
> modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
> and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
> driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
-
To
Hi!
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
>
> No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some
Hi!
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
-
To unsubscribe
Date:Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's
modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it
and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:21:26PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 06:46:59PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Date:Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 + (GMT)
From: Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 10:42:29PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source
code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from
[Christopher Friesen]
> I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
> to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
> only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and
for
[Christopher Friesen]
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and
for
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 01:09:37PM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
>
> > > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
> > > people to whome you have distributed
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
> > people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
> > have to provide that source if you are asked
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> > > I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
> > > base for my inhouse use and
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
> > base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
> > glimpse at it. I don't give this to
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a
glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular
base for my inhouse use and there is _no_
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 01:09:37PM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
people to whome you have distributed your new
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:14:47AM -0500, Christopher Friesen wrote:
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to
people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only
have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No.
>
> If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
> and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
>
> Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
> Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
> other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
And the code for FASTTRAK is not GPL, James we did this once before.
If Promise were
> > I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that
> > incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are
> > module only!
>
> Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
> other terms you like for your own code, but it
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
> >
> > No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is.
> Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds
> every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking
> kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me
> because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Ask me for the GPL code that I
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> > anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
>
> No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
> change if you give
> You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
> anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL,
then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any
restrictions on
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> give it away.
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
give it away.
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL,
then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any
restrictions on
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a
change if you give someone the
Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds
every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking
kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me
because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Ask me for the GPL code that I wrote
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for
anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only
I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that
incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are
module only!
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
other terms you like for your own code, but it is no
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, James A Sutherland wrote:
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any
other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
And the code for FASTTRAK is not GPL, James we did this once before.
If Promise were
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 09:08:30PM +0100, Henning P . Schmiedehausen wrote:
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use
and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL,
Oh remember, I DEFINED the terms that the module could be created!
Go and examine the wrapper and it is portions of the pdc202xx.c code that
is mine. With that in mind, in order to use that GPL code, the
restrictions and terms imposed were module exclusive.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
> can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
> give it away.
And you will never boot it because the resources conflict with out the
module, go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>NO!
>Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
>Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
[...]
>> The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
[...]
The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel
so
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You
can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't
give it away.
And you will never boot it because the resources conflict with out the
module, go try
Oh remember, I DEFINED the terms that the module could be created!
Go and examine the wrapper and it is portions of the pdc202xx.c code that
is mine. With that in mind, in order to use that GPL code, the
restrictions and terms imposed were module exclusive.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
> So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
> up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
> Promise
So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile
against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one
proprietary object file.
During my linux installation I was able to
So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile
against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one
proprietary object file.
During my linux installation I was able to
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY
Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected
up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies
64 matches
Mail list logo
