dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] > I doubt any distribution but the FSF "purified" Debian (the one that has > no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG "purified" Debian[1], please. [1] -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to

dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] I doubt any distribution but the FSF purified Debian (the one that has no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG purified Debian[1], please. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to live? )

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > > perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, > but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? > Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') > would be

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 > Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them >> for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official >> tree. I know just from monitoring this list

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > > > So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting > > > > around, if that's what we actually want to do. > > > > > > Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, > > > talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them > for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official > tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing > these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to > play in the "Grey Area", then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers > are already difficult and expensive for the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to play in the Grey Area, then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers are already difficult and expensive for the companies

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would never

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting around, if that's what we actually want to do. Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagged modules.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') would be

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] > > Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system > > rating. > OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older > boxen with strange gear == gear for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system rating. OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older boxen with strange gear == gear for which

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: > Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ "Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people > > > > distributing the infringing software for 1

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ Ein Herz für Kinder - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > > And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't > > matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have > > no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more > along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of > manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source > drivers for the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little > > multi-platform utility. It

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little multi-platform utility. It would run

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source drivers for the devices. I

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. On the

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/19/06, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 19, 2006, "D. Hazelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the > companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to > comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in

RE: GPL only modules

> > However, those restrictions do not affect those who did not > > agree to them. > > For example, if I buy such a JVM and don't agree to the license > > (assuming I > > don't have to agree to the license to lawfully acquire the > > JVM), I can give > > it to a friend along with any other

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/20/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd agree that "ar", like "mkisofs", doesn't create a derived work, but I > think that "objcopy" does create a derived work, and "ld" does too, by > virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. ... The question is, as a

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware specifications are available. It's not about driver

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: > Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to > allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware > specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the > hardware

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this > Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it. > However, that's > not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you > put in? Do you use: > a) the *default* graphics card > b) the

RE: GPL only modules

Note: Combined responses. > I'd agree that "ar", like "mkisofs", doesn't create a derived work, but I > think that "objcopy" does create a derived work, and "ld" does too, by > virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. Now, you > could distribute to somebody an ar archive of

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? > > It would be really cool to see penguin logos on

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :)

RE: GPL only modules

Note: Combined responses. I'd agree that ar, like mkisofs, doesn't create a derived work, but I think that objcopy does create a derived work, and ld does too, by virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. Now, you could distribute to somebody an ar archive of your program,

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it. However, that's not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you put in? Do you use: a) the *default* graphics card b) the one *I*

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the hardware specifications

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware specifications are available. It's not about driver

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/20/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd agree that ar, like mkisofs, doesn't create a derived work, but I think that objcopy does create a derived work, and ld does too, by virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. ... The question is, as a matter of

RE: GPL only modules

However, those restrictions do not affect those who did not agree to them. For example, if I buy such a JVM and don't agree to the license (assuming I don't have to agree to the license to lawfully acquire the JVM), I can give it to a friend along with any other software I want.

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/19/06, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 19, 2006, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of > > your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would > > have no objection to also

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 19, 2006, "Horst H. von Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other >> equivalent, as provided by copyright law. >> By choosing 'acknowledges' as the verb, the licensee says explicitly >>

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 19, 2006, "D. Hazelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the > companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to > comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source form. > And I have to admit that this does seem

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It makes no difference whether the "mere aggregation" paragraph kicks in > because the "mere aggregation" paragraph is *explaining* the *law*. What > matters is what the law actually *says*. You mean "mere aggregation" is defined in

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see why you can't distribute a single DVD that combines the contents > of the two you bought, so long as you destroy the originals. Because, for example, per Brazilian law since 1998, fair use only grants you the right to

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No automated, mechanical process can create a derivative work of software. > (With a few exceptions not relevant here.) Can you explain what mechanisms are involved in copyright monopolies over object code, then? (there's a hint at

Re: GPL only modules

>> [GPL acknowledging fair-use rights] > Pure noise, a license can't take them away in any case. A bare license probably cannot take them away, since you haven't agreed to anything. But (1) that may not be true in all legal systems, and (2) a contract-based license can take it away (e.g. an

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote: >Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> FWIW: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? >> ret = pciids_to_names(data) >> File

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids' > > That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > FWIW: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? > ret = pciids_to_names(data) > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 11, in pciids_to_names >

Re: GPL only modules

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, D. Hazelton wrote: This doesn't negate any problems with people making Blob drivers, because, as you pointed out, under the same laws they aren't a derivative work, which means that that clause of the license doesn't apply. Now if the GPL contained a clause specifically

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First sale has nothing to do with this. First sale applies to the > redistribution or resale of copies you have purchased, not with the > right to make additional copies. First sale is exactly what this is about. Nobody needs to make

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote: >El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: >> I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize >> the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness >> matrix

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the > current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix > site? I've a script (attached) that looks into

Re: GPL only modules

Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any > > rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit > > too hard. > > From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): > > This License acknowledges your

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :) I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to

Re: GPL only modules

D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > The GPL is a License that covers how the code may be used, modified and > distributed. This is the reason that the FSF people had to make the big > exception for Bison, because the parser skeleton is such an integral part of > Bison (Bison

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any > rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit > too hard. >From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: That said, I think they are still pushing the you don't have any rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly angle a bit too hard. From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by

Re: GPL only modules

D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] The GPL is a License that covers how the code may be used, modified and distributed. This is the reason that the FSF people had to make the big exception for Bison, because the parser skeleton is such an integral part of Bison (Bison itself,

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :) I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to

Re: GPL only modules

Sanjoy Mahajan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linus Torvalds wrote: That said, I think they are still pushing the you don't have any rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly angle a bit too hard. From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): This License acknowledges your rights of fair

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix site? I've a script (attached) that looks into

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote: El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix site? I've

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First sale has nothing to do with this. First sale applies to the redistribution or resale of copies you have purchased, not with the right to make additional copies. First sale is exactly what this is about. Nobody needs to make

Re: GPL only modules

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, D. Hazelton wrote: This doesn't negate any problems with people making Blob drivers, because, as you pointed out, under the same laws they aren't a derivative work, which means that that clause of the license doesn't apply. Now if the GPL contained a clause specifically

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids' That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: FWIW: [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py Traceback (most recent call last): File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 70, in ? ret = pciids_to_names(data) File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 11, in pciids_to_names pciids =

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote: Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: FWIW: [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py Traceback (most recent call last): File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 70, in ? ret = pciids_to_names(data) File

Re: GPL only modules

[GPL acknowledging fair-use rights] Pure noise, a license can't take them away in any case. A bare license probably cannot take them away, since you haven't agreed to anything. But (1) that may not be true in all legal systems, and (2) a contract-based license can take it away (e.g. an NDA).

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No automated, mechanical process can create a derivative work of software. (With a few exceptions not relevant here.) Can you explain what mechanisms are involved in copyright monopolies over object code, then? (there's a hint at

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see why you can't distribute a single DVD that combines the contents of the two you bought, so long as you destroy the originals. Because, for example, per Brazilian law since 1998, fair use only grants you the right to copy

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It makes no difference whether the mere aggregation paragraph kicks in because the mere aggregation paragraph is *explaining* the *law*. What matters is what the law actually *says*. You mean mere aggregation is defined in copyright

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 19, 2006, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source form. And I have to admit that this does seem to comply

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would have no objection to also requiring

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? >> >> The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both >> forms

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? >> >> The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both >> forms

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 12:16, David Schwartz wrote: > Combined responses to save bandwidth and reduce the number of times people > have to press "d". > > > Agreed. You missed the point. > > I don't understand how you could lead with "agreed" and then proceed to > completely ignore the entire

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Static vs dynamic matters for whether it's an AGGREGATE work. Clearly, > static linking aggregates the library with the other program in the same > binary. There's no question about that. And that _does_ have meaning from > a copyright law angle,

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 20:35, David Schwartz wrote: > > For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an > > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not > > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere > > aggregation" paragraph

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 14:41, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license- > > compatible, are certainly not derivative works. > > Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just

RE: GPL only modules

Combined responses: > So therefore I don't think you can reasonably claim that static > vs. dynamic linking is only a technical difference. There are clearly > other differences when it comes to distribution of the resulting > binaries. We're only talking about the special case of GPL'd works.

RE: GPL only modules

> For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere > aggregation" paragraph kicks in. > > If the output is not an aggregate, which is quite

RE: GPL only modules

> > It's also not clear that an aggregate work is in fact > > a single work for any legal purpose other than the aggregator's claim to > > copyright. > Not sure what you're trying to say there - what are we talking about > here other than the copyright? We are talking about two different

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > There is in fact a pretty substantial non-technical difference between > > static and dynamic linking. If I create a binary by static linking > > and I include some library, and I distribute that binary to someone >

Re: GPL only modules

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > There is in fact a pretty substantial non-technical difference between > static and dynamic linking. If I create a binary by static linking > and I include some library, and I distribute that binary to someone > else, the recipient doesn't need to

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds writes: > "Derivation" has nothing to do with "linking". Either it's derived or it > is not, and "linking" simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether > it's static or dynamic. That's a detail that simply doesn't have anythign > at all to do with "derivative work". There

Re: GPL only modules

Junio C Hamano writes: > Excuse me, but are you two discussing "ld"? ;-) Oops. Yes. :) Paul. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? > Here's how it relates: > - if a program is

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able to do something) _nor_ a legal issue. So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually

  1   2   3   4   5   >