Linux and OpenSource is evolution - go on and create your closed source drivers
and do your own closed-source fork - go on and create your own little homo
neanderthalensis !
___
SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
Linux and OpenSource is evolution - go on and create your closed source drivers
and do your own closed-source fork - go on and create your own little homo
neanderthalensis !
___
SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
> Macrovision.
Just about every vendors hardware can do Macrovision. They just forget to
include the Macrovision control in published code, or hide it in a tiny
extra driver (Matrox) or in the BIOS switching firmware (SiS)
> Just so you know I'm not making this up: I know where the "defeat
>
On 2/25/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
> simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Yes, I rather chuckled at the irony as I wrote that one.
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
No, it's a way of saying "yes, there are deliberate performance limits
in the driver code, but they're harder to explain
On 2/25/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
No, it's a way of saying yes, there are deliberate performance limits
in the driver code, but they're harder to explain than
On 2/25/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Yes, I rather chuckled at the irony as I wrote that one. :-)
Macrovision.
Just about every vendors hardware can do Macrovision. They just forget to
include the Macrovision control in published code, or hide it in a tiny
extra driver (Matrox) or in the BIOS switching firmware (SiS)
Just so you know I'm not making this up: I know where the defeat
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in
> > headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can
> > copy those functions into their proprietary module.
>
> Yes, it does. Have you read
> > Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most
> > practical way
> > to write his driver.
> Most practical way to get something Windows compatible is to pirate
> Windows; I do not think that gives me permission to do so.
This is comparing apples to oranges because Windows has
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include
> is not thereby a "derivative work" of the kernel,
> no matter how many entrypoints are labeled EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or
>
On Sun 2007-02-25 03:33:38, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
> > from his
> > binary-only part?
>
> Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
> to write his driver.
Most practical way to get something
> Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
> that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
> to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
> measure against having their retail
> of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
> that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
> to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
> measure against having their retail margins destroyed by nitwits who
> take out all
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds
two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he
can get away with that.
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
from his
> But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
> from his
> binary-only part?
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
to write his driver.
> I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what
> embedded people are doing; I
Hi!
> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
> readable.
>
> I've
Hi!
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
readable.
I've drafted
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h from his
binary-only part?
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
to write his driver.
I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds
two hooks void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping(), he
can get away with that.
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
measure against having their retail margins destroyed by nitwits who
take out all the
On 2/25/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains
that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt
to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive
measure against having their retail margins
Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you.
Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ?
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Sun 2007-02-25 03:33:38, David Schwartz wrote:
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include
pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h from his
binary-only part?
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way
to write his
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include
linux/whatever.h is not thereby a derivative work of the kernel,
no matter how many entrypoints are labeled
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a
simpler explanation?
Says the master of conspiracy.
Trent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most
practical way
to write his driver.
Most practical way to get something Windows compatible is to pirate
Windows; I do not think that gives me permission to do so.
This is comparing apples to oranges because Windows has an
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote:
snip
Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in
headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can
copy those functions into their proprietary module.
Yes, it does. Have you read Lexmark v.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>...
> The only way GPL'ed code can be become copyrighted by the FSF is if
> you explicitly sign a copyright statement
>...
And even this is only possible if permitted by copyright law.
E.g. German copyright law explicitely states
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
...
The only way GPL'ed code can be become copyrighted by the FSF is if
you explicitly sign a copyright statement
...
And even this is only possible if permitted by copyright law.
E.g. German copyright law explicitely states that
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
> today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:26 + Alan wrote:
> > me off, and in the meantime, you know where to find your keyboard's
> > "stick my fingers in my ears and shout la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" key.
> > :-)
>
> I was hoping you'd take the pseudo-legal noise elsewhere.
Yes. I find it interesting,
> Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
> today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded (including the port to Linux
of
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
> for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you take the microsoft windows source code and compile it yourself
> believe me you will get sued if you ship the resulting binaries and you
> will lose in court.
"misappropriation of trade secrets" as well as copyright infringement
But
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote:
> > As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates*
> > the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
> > library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states
> > (in
>
> Not that
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
> But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that
> the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk.
>
> - Ted
Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:17:16PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote:
> Since I tailor the license I apply to code I produce to meet the needs of the
> person or entity I am writing it for, I've never run into this. In truth, the
> LGPL is, IMHO, a piece of garbage. (as is the GPL - if you release code
> compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
> for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all which took about 30 minutes
of brain time
> As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the
> GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
> library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in
Not that I can see no, but you could take this to a list with
D. Hazelton wrote:
(as is the GPL - if you release code under
the GPL you no longer have a legal right to it. Note the following text that
appears in the GPL:
" We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission
D. Hazelton wrote:
(as is the GPL - if you release code under
the GPL you no longer have a legal right to it. Note the following text that
appears in the GPL:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to
As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the
GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in
Not that I can see no, but you could take this to a list with lawyers
compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all which took about 30 minutes
of brain time
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:17:16PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote:
Since I tailor the license I apply to code I produce to meet the needs of the
person or entity I am writing it for, I've never run into this. In truth, the
LGPL is, IMHO, a piece of garbage. (as is the GPL - if you release code
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
snip
But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that
the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk.
- Ted
Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote:
As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates*
the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states
(in
Not that I can see
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you take the microsoft windows source code and compile it yourself
believe me you will get sued if you ship the resulting binaries and you
will lose in court.
misappropriation of trade secrets as well as copyright infringement
But that's
On 2/22/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K
for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after
No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I
was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all
Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded (including the port to Linux
of Algorithmics
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:26 + Alan wrote:
me off, and in the meantime, you know where to find your keyboard's
stick my fingers in my ears and shout la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you key.
:-)
I was hoping you'd take the pseudo-legal noise elsewhere.
Yes. I find it interesting, but it
On 2/22/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI
today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support
Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and
linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, on re-reading the GPL, I see exactly why they made that pair of
exceptions. Where it's quite evident that a small to mid scale parsers that
could have been written *without* the use of Bison is clearly a
non-derivative work - Bison was
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
" We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software."
--IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer
> > generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their
> > inclusion in the source file that
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
> shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
> given you the compiler he compiled it
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
> shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
> given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
> code is a nice piece
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
code is a nice piece of literature but of no engineering utility; but
that's the situation
On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a
"derivative work".
Far from it. Try reading to the end.
We all know that #include is mostly non copyrightable, so I
mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may not
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed
my POP server too! That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL.
And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to
need to understand how a lawsuit for
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
> what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
> compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
> Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
>
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
readable.
I've drafted summaries
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it
in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
of the code
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a need for secret source code, stuff most of it
in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
of the code and
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
readable.
I've drafted summaries
Michael K. Edwards wrote:
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and
what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that
compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense.
Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed
my POP server too! That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL.
And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to
need to understand how a lawsuit for
On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a
derivative work.
Far from it. Try reading to the end.
We all know that #include anything.h is mostly non copyrightable, so I
mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
code is a nice piece of literature but of no engineering utility; but
that's the situation
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
code is a nice piece of
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer
generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their
inclusion in the source file that is to
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
--IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, on re-reading the GPL, I see exactly why they made that pair of
exceptions. Where it's quite evident that a small to mid scale parsers that
could have been written *without* the use of Bison is clearly a
non-derivative work - Bison was
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it
> in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
> open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
> of the code and the cleverness is
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> Flame bait alert:
> I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
> I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
> from the "users" view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual
>
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
> > Flame bait alert:
> > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
> > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
> >
v j wrote:
Assuming these need not be GPL, I have a problem with
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and the general trend in the direction of making
proprietary drivers harder on companies. Our drivers use basic
interfaces in the kernel like open, read, write, ioctl, semaphores,
interrupts, timers etc. This is
v j wrote:
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just
doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what
rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code
makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 21:19 -0800, v j wrote:
[...]
> Now it would also be worthwhile to contemplate what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> does to this popularity. I don't know. I am just giving you my
The big problem with such discussions (as this) are: It is a law
decision which license applies in which
v j wrote:
Now the popularity of Linux is exploding in the embedded space. Nobody
talks of VxWorks and OSE anymore. It is all Linux. Perhaps it would be
a worthwhile experiment to study this surge in popularity. I am not an
expert, but perhaps the reason is "it works so goddamn well and has a
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to read that.
I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is
ok with me posting this, so enjoy:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html
There ya go.
Trent
-
To
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and,
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and,
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to read that.
I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is
ok with me posting this, so enjoy:
http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html
There ya go.
Trent
-
To
v j wrote:
Now the popularity of Linux is exploding in the embedded space. Nobody
talks of VxWorks and OSE anymore. It is all Linux. Perhaps it would be
a worthwhile experiment to study this surge in popularity. I am not an
expert, but perhaps the reason is it works so goddamn well and has a
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 21:19 -0800, v j wrote:
[...]
Now it would also be worthwhile to contemplate what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
does to this popularity. I don't know. I am just giving you my
The big problem with such discussions (as this) are: It is a law
decision which license applies in which
v j wrote:
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just
doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what
rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code
makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I
v j wrote:
Assuming these need not be GPL, I have a problem with
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and the general trend in the direction of making
proprietary drivers harder on companies. Our drivers use basic
interfaces in the kernel like open, read, write, ioctl, semaphores,
interrupts, timers etc. This is
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
Flame bait alert:
I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
from the
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said:
Flame bait alert:
I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and
I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see
from the users view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a need for secret source code, stuff most of it
in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their
open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk
of the code and the cleverness is kept safe
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of
them, I think he has some
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly learnt a lot.
Combined responses
> On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under
> > the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you
> > "compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the
meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed
against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of
art in copyright law", and "not a
1 - 100 of 506 matches
Mail list logo