> What happens if I ship a binary-only program that uses *either* a GPL library
> or a custom library with the same API? "If you don't have the Frobozz-Foo
> library, you'll have to supply your own work-alike"
It depends whether it is a derived work. It doesn't matter if you paint
it green, h
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 05:50:17 +0100, Marcel Holtmann said:
> go ahead and create an application that uses a GPL only library. Then
> ask a lawyer if it is okay to distribute your application in binary only
> form without making the source code available (according to the GPL).
>
> http://www.gnu.o
David Newall wrote on 03-02-08 16:07:
Greg KH wrote:
It comes down to the simple fact, if you wish to use Linux, abide by the
license it comes under. To do otherwise is both disenginous and
illegal[1].
I think you're being dishonest. This isn't really about Linux and it
being licensed under
On 10/02/2008, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, of course, and I'll never argue otherwise. However, what I was saying is
> that it is the claim of the FSF that, in no uncertain terms, a C program that
> uses the standard C library interface and is linked to glibc instead of, say,
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
> > application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
> > and
>
> And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
> mate
> Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
> application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process and
And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
material in your hard disk either - thats a mechanical process too.
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > > > > It makes no difference if you
> > > > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> > > >
> > > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > > > used in the intended, ordinary way. Yo
Hi Daniel,
> > > > It makes no difference if you
> > > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> > >
> > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor can
> > > you violate, the GPL simply by
On Saturday 09 February 2008 23:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > It makes no difference if you
> > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> >
> > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor c
Hi David,
> > Lets phrase this in better words as Valdis pointed out: You can't
> > distribute an application (binary or source form) under anything else
> > than GPL if it uses a GPL library.
>
> This simply cannot be correct. The only way it could be true is if the work
> was a derivative work
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Lets phrase this in better words as Valdis pointed out: You can't
> distribute an application (binary or source form) under anything else
> than GPL if it uses a GPL library.
This simply cannot be correct. The only way it could be true is if the work
was a derivative wor
On Feb 9, 2008 6:50 PM, Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A device driver isn't that hard either. I can write a device driver
> with a hand tied behind my back, to write a good balancing tree, I'd
> have to spend a lot more time reading up on algorithms. So "trivial" is
> a matter of
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:41:00 +0200
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 5:13 PM, Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But lets say that the b-tree code uses Linux-only primitives such as
> > kmalloc or spinlocks, and that I wrote the code specifically for the
> >
On Feb 9, 2008 5:13 PM, Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But lets say that the b-tree code uses Linux-only primitives such as
> kmalloc or spinlocks, and that I wrote the code specifically for the
> Linux kernel, does that make it into a derivative work?
>
> What if I do a trivial rep
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:49:39 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It requires software that is *distributed* as part of a GPL
> > work to itself be GPL. At time of distribution, a kernel module is
> > neither using nor linked to the kernel.
>
> Oh, come on! You cannot turn a deri
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:10:04 +1030
David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, Alexander Terekhov has forwarded some links to me, relating to
> the question of whether or not a Linux kernel module can be original.
> Bear in mind that these links relate to U.S. Copyright Law.
Mercy, no, with fr
Hi David,
> > Anyway you are still under the impression that a Linux kernel module can
> > be original work in the end. We keep telling you that could be a wrong
> > assumption which is based on the view of many of the kernel developers
> > and of most of the lawyers that looked at this specific t
Hi Valdis,
> > And while you are talking to a lawyer. Ask him/her if it is okay to
> > create a binary only application that uses a GPL library. Tell him/her
>
> It's perfectly legal to create such an application.
>
> It only gets interesting if you *distribute* it...
>
> (And yes, this is wher
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
> > In other words "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" isn't his idea of "a good legal idea",
> > but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
> > eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
> > code. (In additi
> In other words "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" isn't his idea of "a good legal idea", but
> people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will, eventually,
> have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the code. (In
> addition, he stated that circumventing the "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL"
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:15:01 +0100, Marcel Holtmann said:
> And while you are talking to a lawyer. Ask him/her if it is okay to
> create a binary only application that uses a GPL library. Tell him/her
It's perfectly legal to create such an application.
It only gets interesting if you *distribute
Greg KH wrote:
> A "driver" is not an "application" as you tried to reference in your
> prior quotes.
I think your treating what the learned Professors said to literally.
> It is a tiny portion of the whole kernel,
The Copyright Act draws no such a distinction.
> and as such,
> does fall under
On Friday 08 February 2008 14:08:21 David Newall wrote:
> I explained something poorly:
> > Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has
> > received, but he's been completely coy in the details.
>
> The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers
> say
My, I am full of post scripts today. This one is a peace token for Alan.
David Newall wrote:
> there are more reliable and transparent sources [than Alan.] Don't take his
> word on it. Take the words of real experts in the law, because instead
> of a mere four word conclusion, they explain ever
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 05:10:04AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
> The reasonable conclusion is that an original, non-derivative USB driver
> can be written, and let's face it, a number of them have been referred
> to in the course of this discussion.
A "driver" is not an "application" as you tried t
I explained something poorly:
> Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has
> received, but he's been completely coy in the details.
The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers
say that kernel modules are derivative, but I only remember Alan saying
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Anyway you are still under the impression that a Linux kernel module can
> be original work in the end. We keep telling you that could be a wrong
> assumption which is based on the view of many of the kernel developers
> and of most of the lawyers that looked at this specif
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:25:33 +1030
> David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>
It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
and that." I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
> Well, winmodem case is the only I could *almost* understand
> closed-source drivers: the algorithms used *are* the modem. It's not a
> simple firmware upload.
Winmodem is all about patents, the modem standards come from ISO so are
created by all out corporate warfare with the winner getting th
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:25:33 +1030
David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >> It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
> >> and that." I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
> >>
> >
> > It would be highly improper given t
Hi David,
> > I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
> > it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
> > consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
> > infringement if the copyright holder thinks what yo
Lee Mathers ha scritto:
Now we have hardware ASIC that depend on the most part a (dll in
windows) or .ko .o file under linux to provide the entire instruction
set. Think Winmodems, Winprinters etc
Well, winmodem case is the only I could *almost* understand
closed-source drivers: the al
David Newall ha scritto:
Precisely: One purpose of the driver is to enforce local compliance.
It can't *enforce* it anyway, at least if the users are all around the
world.
Yes it can. You're confusing the software with different or modified
software. Different things. And by the way, if you
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
> infringement if the copyrigh
Alan Cox wrote:
>> It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
>> and that." I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
>>
>
> It would be highly improper given these were business discussions
> involving companies using Linux.
Then you should never
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> The license says that derivative work has to be GPL. Naturally, every
> sensible and practically usable license has gray areas. We know that
> and we live with that. But if there's room for interpretation, it's
> perfectly OK and helpful, if the copyright holder states wha
> Don't ignore, "mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
> scope of this License." Static linking certainly makes something part
> o
Alan Cox kirjoitti:
doesn't mean it's derived from Linux. In the case of user-space code
it's widely understood that no licence restrictions are conferred. The
Actually that is also questionable. The only reason it is fairly certain
in Linux is Linus went to the trouble of stating that i
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:51:22AM +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote:
> Alan Cox kirjoitti:
>>> doesn't mean it's derived from Linux. In the case of user-space code
>>> it's widely understood that no licence restrictions are conferred. The
>>>
>>
>> Actually that is also questionable. The only r
And it's a logical problem, too: why should the *driver* enforce a
*technical* limit?
That's part of it's purpose. It permits a manufacturer to make a global
device that operates within local restrictions.
--
Then the hardware vendor needs to review there practices. If you want
to
Hi David,
> > I disagree here. They either play by the roles or they really do pay
> > Microsoft or go with BSD. I really couldn't care less.
> Then you should keep away from the kernel. The last thing that Linux
> needs is someone who doesn't care if Linux succeeds or fails. "I don't
> care" wi
Hi Diego,
> > I think it is perfectly within their rights to do so. I think it's
> > kind of silly to try to hide it, if someone wants to boost the maximum
> > transmit power, they're going to hack the firmware anyway. But if it
> > makes Intel happy, well... :-)
> And break the HW :-) Actually,
Hi David,
> >>> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
> >>> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
> >>> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
> >>> infringement if the copyright holder thinks what you have i
> It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
> and that." I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
It would be highly improper given these were business discussions
involving companies using Linux.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "uns
Am Fri, 08 Feb 2008 03:20:26 +1030
schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> > Am Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:01:24 +1030
> > schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>> It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state
> >>> how they interpret the li
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:01:24 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state
>>> how they interpret the license and what they consider a license
>>> violation.
>>>
>> Copyright-holders' op
nel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
>
> Using a symbol from a library means linking to it, and that creates a
> derived work. Why should it be different when using kernel symbols?
There's an interesting par
Alan Cox wrote:
>> previous statements which seemed to say, "you've spoken to numerous
>>
>
> Please don't use "seemed to say" and then quote words I've never said.
> That's misleading, rude and also awful language style.
No, it's called, "paraphrasing," and it's quite normal in a
conversatio
Alan Cox wrote:
>> No, I'm right. The word "proof" is appropriate in context. (I write in
>> plain English, not Legalese.) I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean
>> "mathematically certain." Anybody who pretends that proof in court
>> means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive.
>>
Am Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:01:24 +1030
schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state
> > how they interpret the license and what they consider a license
> > violation.
>
> Copyright-holders' opinions mean nothing. In the particular
Alan Cox wrote:
>> That's what you claim it says, but has any court, anywhere, agreed with
>> you? You claim the authority of others (i.e. numerous lawyers), but I
>> don't believe you have that authority. You're just starting hearsay.
>> You've never said what lawyers and you've never told us w
Alan Cox wrote:
>> It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL. What I am doing is
>> telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said.
>>
>
> In which case for each statement please give the case at appeal or higher
> level which is the precedent for the interpretation.
>
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Again, I missed who wrote the above. I'm reminded of Apple computer,
>> who explaining some engineering decisions in the Apple ][ pointed out
>> that an additional 10c in components adds $10 to the retail price (or
>> something rather like that.) Cheap, cheap, cheap helps mark
> previous statements which seemed to say, "you've spoken to numerous
Please don't use "seemed to say" and then quote words I've never said.
That's misleading, rude and also awful language style. I've not said
anything is definite because as I said before there is no caselaw.
We know the GPL is e
Diego Zuccato wrote:
> David Newall ha scritto:
>
>> That's naive, since requirements differ in different jurisdictions, as
>> I'm sure you are perfectly aware.
> Naive? Who thinks a limit can be enforced by sw is naive!
Of course. Naturally it's near impossible to prevent people from
tweaking th
> No, I'm right. The word "proof" is appropriate in context. (I write in
> plain English, not Legalese.) I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean
> "mathematically certain." Anybody who pretends that proof in court
> means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive.
I'm afraid you are wrong d
> That's what you claim it says, but has any court, anywhere, agreed with
> you? You claim the authority of others (i.e. numerous lawyers), but I
> don't believe you have that authority. You're just starting hearsay.
> You've never said what lawyers and you've never told us what they
> actually
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 09:07:38AM +0100, Diego Zuccato wrote:
> Christer Weinigel ha scritto:
>...
> [...]
>> preliminary go ahead from the bosses to provide documentation under an
>> NDA to Linux developers that would like to write GPL drivers for it. I
> [...]
> Urgh... I don't think NDAs and O
Alan Cox wrote:
>>> IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
>>> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
>>> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
>>> GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a
Alan Cox wrote:
>> No. Holders of Linux copyrights would have to prove that the
>> proprietary code is derived from the kernel. They have the burden of
>> proof, and defence needs merely show that their arguments are wrong.
>>
>
> Wrong again. In civil law in the USA and most of europe the t
Alan Cox wrote:
>> In Australia, devices require approval from a regulatory body. Such
>> approval is withheld if appropriate safeguards are not applied.
>>
>
> We were talking about the USA.
We most certainly were not. We are talking about Linux, and everybody
wants it be used globally.
>
> It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL. What I am doing is
> telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said.
In which case for each statement please give the case at appeal or higher
level which is the precedent for the interpretation.
> > If the developers say that this
> Again, I missed who wrote the above. I'm reminded of Apple computer,
> who explaining some engineering decisions in the Apple ][ pointed out
> that an additional 10c in components adds $10 to the retail price (or
> something rather like that.) Cheap, cheap, cheap helps market share
> far more
Alan Cox wrote:
>> The contract (GPL) doesn't prevent me from using GPL work, in fact it
>> encourages me. Neither can it impose conditions upon original work
>> authored by a third party.
>>
>
> First mistake: The GPL is not a contract it is a license.
Mea culpa. It is indeed a licence, whi
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Nobody is saying "I don't like your licence." The issue is a
>> technical restriction in Linux that attempts to restrict non-GPL
>> software from running under it.
>>
>
> What ar
David Newall ha scritto:
That's naive, since requirements differ in different jurisdictions, as
I'm sure you are perfectly aware.
Naive? Who thinks a limit can be enforced by sw is naive!
He's missing a little detail: Internet. :-)
Precisely: One purpose of the driver is to enforce local comp
> > IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
> > sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> > distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
> > GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a laptop with a
> doesn't mean it's derived from Linux. In the case of user-space code
> it's widely understood that no licence restrictions are conferred. The
Actually that is also questionable. The only reason it is fairly certain
in Linux is Linus went to the trouble of stating that interpretation was
intend
> In Australia, devices require approval from a regulatory body. Such
> approval is withheld if appropriate safeguards are not applied.
We were talking about the USA. I am not aware of any Australian answers
to the specific question of software as an appropriate safeguard. The US
requires appropr
> Perhaps you might read up on unfair trade practices and contract law.
I'm familiar with them to some extent because I have run companies in the
past and continue to do so as a sideline to my Red Hat work. I also spend
more time than I'd like talking to lawyers about licencing.
> The contract (
Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030
schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> > If somebody prefers an other OS for license reasons only, let them.
> > You cannot have open source software without open source license.
> > If a company chooses Linux, they do it for techni
Hi David,
On Feb 7, 2008 3:31 PM, David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This *is* real work. You have blinded yourself to the fact that this
> discussion is preliminary to a proposed change.
>
> Or put another way, if you want to kill the discussion then the answer
> to "shall we" is "no."
O
Alan Cox wrote:
>> I heard this all before and I don't buy it anymore. At some point the
>> companies in Asia will understand that the whole picture looks different
>> and that not always cheap, cheap, cheap is best for their margins.
Again, I missed who wrote the above. I'm reminded of Apple com
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
>>> the GPL.
>>>
>> Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it
>> would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be
>> written and distri
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
>>> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
>>> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
>>> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
>>> infringement if the copyright holder
Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:09:07PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> Marcel Holtmann writes:
>>
>>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
>>> the GPL.
>>>
>> Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then
>>
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
>> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
>> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
>> license or don't use this symbol at all.
>>
>> If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you
Diego Zuccato wrote:
> David Newall ha scritto:
>
>> "Of course", because in many parts of the world, a device who's
>> manufacturer fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being
>> used outside regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code not
>> only is a failure to take those re
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> I have simply stated that (1) the problem boils down to what is
> derived work and what is no and (2) the developers use the
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as a hint of what they think to be derived work (not
> necessarily tested in court). The _logical conclusion_ of these two
> simple
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> David Newall wrote:
>>
>>> That being said, a module can be written such that it only dynamically
>>> links with the kernel. Ndiswrapper is an example of how this can be
>>> done: None of the drivers
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> I disagree here. They either play by the roles or they really do pay
> Microsoft or go with BSD. I really couldn't care less.
Then you should keep away from the kernel. The last thing that Linux
needs is someone who doesn't care if Linux succeeds or fails. "I don't
care"
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> If somebody prefers an other OS for license reasons only, let them. You
> cannot have open source software without open source license. If a
> company chooses Linux, they do it for technical reasons, and because
> they're able to modify the sources to suit their needs. Wha
Christer Weinigel wrote:
> I also think that my customers, that decided to keep their kernel
> modules binary only, made a big mistake and have told them so. But I
> still think it's better for the Linux community to be a bit soft on
> such companies for a while. It's better to let them get away
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:48PM +0100, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800
>> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the end, it's up to the copyright holders to enforce the license.
>>> And as I have stated in the past, a number of t
Chris Friesen wrote:
> if I were to write a new GPL shim and then a new closed-source module
> that uses the shim to access kernel symbols, it is entirely possible
> that a court could rule that my closed-source module is a derivative
> work of the linux kernel because it was written specifically t
Alan Cox wrote:
>> "Of course", because in many parts of the world, a device who's manufacturer
>> fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being used outside
>> regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code not only is a failure
>> to take those reasonable steps, but is quite th
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:44:36AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> A kernel module is akin to a process. It uses services of the kernel
>> without being part of the kernel.
>>
>
> No Linux does not work like this at all.
> ...
> Also see the various issues surrounding "lo
Alan Cox wrote:
>> If we're still talking about whether a kernel module is required to be
>> released under GPL, then yes, this is not a gray area. This is something
>> that authors of original works can decide for themselves. They have no
>>
^^^
>
> Onl
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
>>> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
>>> license or don't use this symbol at all.
>>>
Not sure who wrote the above, but it contains a glaring legal error
David Newall ha scritto:
"Of course", because in many parts of the world, a device who's
manufacturer fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being
used outside regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code not
only is a failure to take those reasonable steps, but is quite the
Christer Weinigel ha scritto:
I think it is perfectly within their rights to do so. I think it's
kind of silly to try to hide it, if someone wants to boost the maximum
transmit power, they're going to hack the firmware anyway. But if it
makes Intel happy, well... :-)
And break the HW :-) Actua
- Original Message -
From: "Jan Engelhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gilles Espinasse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:14 PM
Subject: RE: [PATCH] USB: mark USB drivers as being GPL only
>
>
Hi Christer,
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:46:08 +0200
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What makes you qualified to make that statement (without giving any
> > evidence)? Are you're an expert on international copyright law?
On Feb 6, 2008 11:12 PM, Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
> GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a laptop with a
> close
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:12:54 +0100, Christer Weinigel said:
> If I use an in kernel API, but from a piece of code which is external
> to the kernel, is that really a derived work? If you say it is, do you
> realise that you are advocating something which is very close to an API
> copyright, someth
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:55:45 +0100
Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So how does that invalidate my point? Intel did jump through a lot
> > of hoops to avoid giving away the code that controls their radio.
> > When the regulatory daemon stuff got too much complaints, they
> > finally
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 03:43:26PM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> There a company that is providing a common API for writting Windows
> and Linux drivers. Last time I was using a Macraigor JTAG it was based
> on this proprietary dual platform driver.
>
> http://www.macraigor.com/cgi_bin/counters/unicou
On Feb 1 2008 15:45, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>..
>> There are no known closed source USB drivers in the wild, so this
>> patch should cause no problems.
>
>There is the unicorn usb adsl modem driver (STM unicorn chip).
>http://www.bewan.com/bewan/drivers/A1012-A1006-A904-A888-A983-0.9.3.tgz
>There
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:46:08 +0200
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Marcel Holtmann writes:
> > > You driver was meant to be running as Linux kernel module and
> > > thus it is derivative work.
>
> On Feb 5, 2008 1:39 PM, David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> David Newall wrote:
>> That being said, a module can be written such that it only dynamically
>> links with the kernel. Ndiswrapper is an example of how this can be
>> done: None of the drivers that work under ndiswrapper make any
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
