> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
> > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to
> > warn people
> > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it,
> Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
> says "Warning: Coffee is served
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> > infringement on a list of given
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
> There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people
> about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it,
Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were a
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said:
>
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
>
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
>
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
100F == 37C
125F == 52C
55C =
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> >
> > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
> >
> > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature.
> 165-190F is the
> > preferred se
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
>
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
>
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
> preferred serving range. I can
> How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it
> she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued
> McDonalds for that people would be more understainding...
How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether
or not McDonald's
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote:
> Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have
> this problem :-)
>
> [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption
> and flame wars].
Yes, PLEEZE!
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and co
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
> > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > > mcdonald's was unaware of th
> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
example:
http://www.bunn.com
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
> > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
>
> Given the popul
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediate
Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to
> list the patents and the amoun
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 08:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember t
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>
>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>> wil
> > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
> > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > >
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and compa
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > often feel they have to act accordingly. Rem
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
> country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to p
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
> sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
> graphics hardware.
Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent
on the conce
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
> > practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
> > have (original?) source code than
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
of the compiled code and prove t
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
> hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about
> software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which
> violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release
> binaries that vio
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
[...]
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
> hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about
> software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which
> violates someone's pat
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even
totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
code that doesn't infringe on
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> > translate..
> >
> > Wh
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> translate..
>
> Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we
> don't "g
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said:
> That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
> about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on
> with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
> work. If they had real IPR in
Hi!
> >You're not alone, I think everybody who knows, how
> >things in a
> >computer work shares this view.
> ---
>
> Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that
> the board (and
> its hardware interfaces that the documentation would
> describe) involve
> IP licensed from a third par
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> translate..
That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get o
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from other companies
What makes you think they "get it
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't
apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative
work of another in *functional* detail.
in fact, to get a Patent you are required to explain the
> Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
> patents or something similar that would prevent you from
> publishing results
> adn/or drivers (open source).
As I understand the issues, you have the right to reverse engineer hardware
except where the DMCA applies.
On 12/28/06, Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
This is a pretty good resource:
http://www.chillingeffects.
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser,
disassembly of windows driver, etc.
Rok
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
.
The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should
have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and
clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the ite
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You buy a phone for $200. The manufacturer only represents that it works
with CarrierCo. ...
You have the right to do what you like with the phone, of course. It's a
great doorstop and a reasonable paper weight. The manufacturer didn't
prom
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
.
> The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should
> have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and
> clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item
> sold, except those
James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Let's summarize the current situation:
> 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products,
> as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver).
No. They have absolutely no obligation to tell you anything
> Again, while some of the car/house analogies may describe situations
> where the seller has not conveyed all the rights, the video card
> situation is completely different. You have the right to do what you
> like with it and the seller retains no rights. Lack of documentation
> is not an imposi
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's really common sense. Imagine if you buy the right to use my car, but I
don't give you the key. Can I say, "yes, you have the right to use my car,
you bought that, but that doesn't mean I have to tell you how to use my
car."
---
I have
Combined responses:
> > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures.
> > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as
> > that rig
--- Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They
> are
> > just that - utter nonsense.
> >
> > And now lets stop the car nonsense :-)
>
> I agree, if you re
--- James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> > On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the c
On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> > That includes using the car to violate emissi
On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are
just that - utter nonsense.
And now lets stop the car nonsense :-)
I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes
I've heard from mecha
On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> That includes using the car to violate emission control measures.
> If I didn't buy the right to use the car that
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are
just that - utter nonsense.
>> I have no idea why you assume that "having the right to do X"
implies
>> "must be told how to do X". The have the right (except as laws
>> prohibit it) to modify the car's systems, but (except f
> I have no idea why you assume that "having the right to do X" implies
> "must be told how to do X". The have the right (except as laws
> prohibit it) to modify the car's systems, but (except for some
> specific legal requirements) the manufacturer is not required to
> explain anything, even basi
On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must include any rights
the manufacturer might have to the car's use. That includes using the car to
violate emission control measures. If I didn't buy the right to use the car
that way (
> > Now, let's try it another way: Are they allowed to sell a car that
> > incorporates a computer that uses a trade-secret algorithm for
> > controlling
> > the fuel injection to get 20 more horsepower and 5% better
> > mileage if it's
> > impossible to *start* the car without knowing that algori
Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2006 21:20 schrieb Horst H. von Brand:
> It is done regularly. Current cars control the fuel injection etc
> via an onboard computer, without this control the engine just won't
> start. Did you get the specs for the exact fuel control algorithm
> with your car? Should you
Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that debate around cars and drivers has gone too far (IMHO).
Ditto.
> I
> do not think that there is a question if we have any right to demand
> details about hardware from man
It seems that debate around cars and drivers has gone too far (IMHO). I
do not think
that there is a question if we have any right to demand details about
hardware from
manufactorers -> we are NOT. But I think that we have right to know how
to use it.
I will translate this to CAR language - We
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Now, let's try it another way: Are they allowed to sell a car that
> incorporates a computer that uses a trade-secret algorithm for controlling
> the fuel injection to get 20 more horsepower and 5% better mileage if it's
> impossible to *start* th
On Sun, 2006-24-12 at 09:33 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:19:09 PST, David Schwartz said:
>
> > > You can't sell something that doesn't exist. If you sell a car
> > > even though
> > > you can't explain how anyone could drive it, that's fraud.
>
> > Are they allowed to s
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:19:09 PST, David Schwartz said:
> > You can't sell something that doesn't exist. If you sell a car
> > even though
> > you can't explain how anyone could drive it, that's fraud.
> Are they allowed to sell a car that incorporates a computer that uses a
> trade-secret algo
Am Sonntag, 24. Dezember 2006 07:46 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Are they allowed to sell a car that incorporates a computer that
> uses a trade-secret algorithm for controlling the fuel injection to
> get 20 more horsepower and 5% better mileage?
That would be a propritary fuel injection driver
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:19:09 PST, David Schwartz said:
> You can't sell something that doesn't exist. If you sell a car even though
> you can't explain how anyone could drive it, that's fraud.
Are they allowed to sell a car that incorporates a computer that uses a
trade-secret algorithm for contr
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that the board (and
> > its hardware interfaces that the documentation would describe) involve
> > IP licensed from a third party, which the board manufacturer does not
> > have a legal right to disclose,
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Honestly, I think it *is* wrong to sell someone a physical product and then
> not tell them how to make it work.
Right. And the driver *is* the "information to make it work", in a
convenient package.
[...]
> How would you feel if you bought a c
> Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that the board (and
> its hardware interfaces that the documentation would describe) involve
> IP licensed from a third party, which the board manufacturer does not
> have a legal right to disclose,
If they can't disclose it, they can't sell it.
Robert Hancock wrote:
Nikolaos D. Bougalis wrote:
Manufacturers design product as they see fit and offer it on the
market; I don't see nVidia or ATI thugs twisting your arm behind you
as you walk down the aisle of Fry's Electronics saying "buy this nice
card we made or I'll break your arm.
On 12/22/06, Wolfgang Draxinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2006 20:22 schrieb Rok Markovic:
> Hi!
>
> Maybe this does not belong to this thread, but I am wondering why
> manufactorers doesn't want to release specifications about drivers
You're not alone, I think ever
Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2006 20:22 schrieb Rok Markovic:
> Hi!
>
> Maybe this does not belong to this thread, but I am wondering why
> manufactorers doesn't want to release specifications about drivers.
> They have decided to develop some hardware for, let say 3D
> accelaration. Now they are selli
Nikolaos D. Bougalis wrote:
Manufacturers design product as they see fit and offer it on the
market; I don't see nVidia or ATI thugs twisting your arm behind you as
you walk down the aisle of Fry's Electronics saying "buy this nice card
we made or I'll break your arm."
If you need high-pe
Hi!
Maybe this does not belong to this thread, but I am wondering why
manufactorers doesn't want to release specifications about drivers.
They have decided to develop some hardware for, let say 3D accelaration.
Now they are selling hardware and users are buying hardware. Users are
not buying hardw
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
> o
Am Donnerstag, 21. Dezember 2006 21:50 schrieb David Schwartz:
> Honestly, I think it *is* wrong to sell someone a physical product
> and then not tell them how to make it work. If you're not actually
> selling them the physical product but selling them a way to get a
> particular thing done, then
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:12:57 CST, Scott Preece said:
> On 12/21/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How would you feel if you bought a car and then discovered that the
> > manufacturer had welded the hood shut? How many people still do their own
> > oil changes anyway?
> ---
>
> But
Hello!
> I disagree. The manufacturer has a right to choose to sell its devices
> under any legal business model. Part of that model is deciding what
> level of support to provide and what systems to support in selling it.
At the very least, if they decide that they wish to provide a binary-only
On 12/21/06, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Porter wrote:
> I'm pretty sure Linus has decided, basically he said the patches to
> prevent non-gpl binary drivers are not going into his tree unless every
> other tree adopts it. Of course the few supporting won't get off their
> hig
On 12/21/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You say "It's rude to not play by our rules". They say "It's rude of
> you to expect us to change our business model to support your niche
> market differently from the way we support everyone else." Neither is
> wrong...
Honestly, I thin
On 12/21/06, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But as it happens that driver does not work for a large segment
percentage of linux users who potentially could place the card in
their system. Did that driver support all 23 architectures?
---
David wrote:
> Honestly, I think it *is* wrong to sell someone a physical product and then
> not tell them how to make it work. If you're not actually selling them the
> physical product but selling them a way to get a particular thing done, then
> don't represent that you're selling them physical
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:50:00 PST, David Schwartz said:
> How would you feel if you bought a car and then discovered that the
> manufacturer had welded the hood shut? How many people still do their own
> oil changes anyway?
I know of at least one use case where a car *has* to have the doors welded
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
You say "It's rude to not play by our rules". They say "It's rude of
you to expect us to change our business model to support your niche
market differently from the way we support everyone else." Neither is
wrong...
Honestly, I think it *is* wrong to
> You say "It's rude to not play by our rules". They say "It's rude of
> you to expect us to change our business model to support your niche
> market differently from the way we support everyone else." Neither is
> wrong...
Honestly, I think it *is* wrong to sell someone a physical product and th
Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is, nobody wants to decide what to do with closed source software
> in
> Linux. I don't care how you decide, for or against binary drivers (well,
> actually I do but my opinion doesn't matter), just decide already!
The decision from Linus
"Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is more rude:
> (a) "Thank you for requesting a driver to support our hardware on
> Linux. Unfortunately, we don't have time either to provide such a
> driver or write the documentation that would allow you do so. The
> Linux market is not big eno
James Porter wrote:
I'm pretty sure Linus has decided, basically he said the patches to
prevent non-gpl binary drivers are not going into his tree unless every
other tree adopts it. Of course the few supporting won't get off their
high horse and try it on a different tree.
.. unfortunately, t
Erik Mouw wrote:
"However, we thought the legal and technical expense involved in
writing this binary driver and possibly violating the Linux kernel
copyright was well spend."
So Microsoft is right, the legal status of Linux software _is_ unclear.
You just gave them every reason to continu
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said:
> So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers,
> it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers
> *hardware* companies distribute.
The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot abou
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:33:10AM -0600, Scott Preece wrote:
> (b) "Thank you for requesting a driver to support our hardware on
> Linux. Unfortunately, we don't have time either to provide such a
> driver or write the documentation that would allow you do so. The
> Linux market is not big enough
On 12/18/06, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have a process that has worked for centuries to improve our
knowledge base. The scientific method and peer review. We use a
variation of this proven process for writing software in linux. The
binary only vendors are being rude and r
Denis Vlasenko wrote:
Why vendor has a right to restrict me to a few existing OSes?
Manufacturers design product as they see fit and offer it on the market; I
don't see nVidia or ATI thugs twisting your arm behind you as you walk down
the aisle of Fry's Electronics saying "buy this nice car
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
[...]
> The argument that a hardware company usually
> invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's
> pitute about the software itself, they do care
> about the information the software contains
> about their hardware. The concern is tha
--- Giuseppe Bilotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies
> here, not
> *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make
> money by selling
> *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in
> fact, they always
> distribute the 'software' they write (th
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote:
> For a professional developer of any software the decision of open
> sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems
> because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway.
> However a professional dev
On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> Dear Linux Kernel ML,
>
> I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
> the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
>
> While, I understand and share you
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
Dear Linux Kernel ML,
I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and
drivers. I fear howev
Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:20:58PM +, James Porter wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I don't see any problem with binary drivers from
> hardware
>>> manufacturers.
>>
>> Binary drivers from hardware manufacturers are crap. Le
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 09:59:43PM +, Alan wrote:
> 3DFx invented SLI many years ago. The SLI programming information for the
> 3DFx cards is public. Nvidia are a bit late to the party except on the PR
> front.
Well they do work differently. 3Dfx just did alternate line rendering,
while nvidi
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 21:20 +, James Porter wrote:
> I think some kernel developers take to much responsibility, is there a bug in
> a
> binary driver? Send it upstream and explain to the user that it's a closed
Plaese name them. AFAICS if there is a response, it is similar to "your
kernel is
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
