On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about
binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
for example). You are writing an addition to linux
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about
binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
for example). You are writing an addition to linux
> You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
> GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
> written for other operating systems and was then ported to Linux.
As one of the copyright holders I make no such exception. Its either a
derived
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
written for other operating systems and was then ported to Linux.
As one of the copyright holders I make no such exception. Its either a
derived work
"Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
[...]
> > If you look at the big chip manufacturers (TI, Maxim, Analog Devices,
> > etc.) they publish specs on everything. It would be nice if others did
> > the same.
> One of the arguments that I have heard is fairly old and
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, jerome lacoste wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
> > Lee Revell wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's not like somebody will have
> >>> some innate commercial advantage over you
Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument.
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument.
Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, jerome lacoste wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage
Randy.Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Chris Friesen wrote:
[...]
If you look at the big chip manufacturers (TI, Maxim, Analog Devices,
etc.) they publish specs on everything. It would be nice if others did
the same.
One of the arguments that I have heard is fairly old and debatable as
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> It's not like somebody will have
> some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
> driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers are telling
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers are telling
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:07 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will
> be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons.
Be very careful if distributing your driver in two parts -- a GPL'd part
and a part which you claim is
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:59AM -0600, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>...
> ** As noted previously it would be interested to see the opinion of a
> U.S. IP lawyer who has conclusively tested the impact of copy right law
> where the boundary of what constitutes a derivative work was explicitly
>
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 01:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
>
> You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
> GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
written for other operating systems and was then ported to
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
written for other operating systems and was then ported to
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 01:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:59AM -0600, Jonathan A. George wrote:
...
** As noted previously it would be interested to see the opinion of a
U.S. IP lawyer who has conclusively tested the impact of copy right law
where the boundary of what constitutes a derivative work was explicitly
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:07 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will
be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons.
Be very careful if distributing your driver in two parts -- a GPL'd part
and a part which you claim is not
Pavel Roskin wrote:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories
for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
subsystem or anything like that. sysctl is not good because the
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
> So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
The "derivative work" distinction in law, which can be quite
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary
> ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module
developers...
As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal
weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear
legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S. copyright
law
Zan Lynx wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd)
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I suggest
Zan Lynx wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd)
snip
...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module
developers...
snip
As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal
weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear
legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S.
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
The derivative work distinction in law, which can be quite
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
Pavel Roskin wrote:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories
for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
subsystem or anything like that. sysctl is not good because the
On Feb 02, 2005, at 23:08, Jonathan A. George wrote:
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:54:02PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
Go read the historical posts from Linus that talk
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:13:15PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain
> frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is
> enabled. There is a hook for that already - see br_handle_frame_hook.
> The
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > >>
> > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:50:49 -0500, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please consider the benefits to GPL software ;-)
Given his @gnu.org posts, I'd suggest he's between a rock and a hard
place and can't just do that. Companies don't always understand these
arguments :-)
On the techical
On Feb 02, 2005, at 20:13, Pavel Roskin wrote:
OK, then the "insufficiency" is inability to set and get additional
named variables for network interfaces.
I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle
certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if
STP is
Hi, Joseph!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> >>
> >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
> >>symbols to the proprietary modules?
> >
> >Ick,
Hi, Greg and Patrick!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot
>From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
>All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
>some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
>additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
>subsystem or anything like
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
> symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them
consider doing this just as forbidden as
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
>
> I have found the
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
Heh, a
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I have found the original e-mail where this change was proposed:
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I have found the original e-mail where this change was proposed:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
Heh, a gnu.org
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I have found the original
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them
consider doing this just as forbidden as
From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
subsystem or anything like that.
Hi, Greg and Patrick!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please
Hi, Joseph!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm
On Feb 02, 2005, at 20:13, Pavel Roskin wrote:
OK, then the insufficiency is inability to set and get additional
named variables for network interfaces.
I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle
certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if
STP is
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:50:49 -0500, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please consider the benefits to GPL software ;-)
Given his @gnu.org posts, I'd suggest he's between a rock and a hard
place and can't just do that. Companies don't always understand these
arguments :-)
On the techical
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:13:15PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain
frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is
enabled. There is a hook for that already - see br_handle_frame_hook.
The
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:54:02PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
Go read the historical posts from Linus that talk
On Feb 02, 2005, at 23:08, Jonathan A. George wrote:
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would
74 matches
Mail list logo
