On 12/18/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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 are
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:41:17PM -0200, 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
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
> touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
> GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
> made.
.. and then what does that
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote:
> I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
> restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
> the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
> enforce distribution of
> 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, since if you don't have permission to ship
>
Hi :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
> what copyright law defines.
Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work.
> And trying to push that definition too far is a total
On 12/18/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, okay. However I'm quite sure that there are more ways to accomplish the
tasks handled by the code in the header files (in most cases).
Well, that may be so. Unfortunately, Lexmark vs. Static Controls
actually says that even if there are
On Monday 18 December 2006 10:47, Dave Neuer wrote:
> On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> > > > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our
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 are subject to copyright
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from
the inside.
How
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> So I guess you approve of the reformulation of LGPL as an additional
> permission on top of GPL, as in its draft at gplv3.fsf.org, right?
Yes. I think that part of the GPLv3 is a good idea.
That said, I think they are still pushing the "you
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 like a big chunk
of other non-GPL drivers for Linux.
But what
On Dec 17, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, glibc could easily have just come out and said the thing that
> is obvious to any sane person: "using this library as just a standard
> library does not make your program a derived work".
> There really wassn't much
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
??
Please don't be rude.
???
J
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from
On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
> I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
> below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do
> whatever it is supposed to do _unless_
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 point I just made.
> Since the Linux Kernel header files
> contain
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
> I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
> below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do
> whatever it is supposed to do _unless_ it is linked with _my_ code,
> then it seems fairly
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
> > operations a good number of them
On 12/17/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Linking does have one thing that it implies: it's maybe a bit "closer"
relationship between the parts than "mkisofs" implies. So there is
definitely a higher _correlation_ between "derived work" and "linking",
but it's really a correlation,
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
Please don't be rude.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>>On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
>>
>>A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
> It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
> people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
> I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
> that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
> loose
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
loose band
Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense.
A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating
nearly 1900
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
Please don't be rude.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
On 12/17/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linking does have one thing that it implies: it's maybe a bit closer
relationship between the parts than mkisofs implies. So there is
definitely a higher _correlation_ between derived work and linking,
but it's really a correlation, not a
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
operations a good number of them (depending on
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
below; the concept of independant meaning. If your code doesn't do
whatever it is supposed to do _unless_ it is linked with _my_ code,
then it seems fairly clear
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 point I just made.
Since the Linux Kernel header files
contain a
On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote:
I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example
below; the concept of independant meaning. If your code doesn't do
whatever it is supposed to do _unless_ it is
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
??
Please don't be rude.
???
J
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from
On Dec 17, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, glibc could easily have just come out and said the thing that
is obvious to any sane person: using this library as just a standard
library does not make your program a derived work.
There really wassn't much need for
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 like a big chunk
of other non-GPL drivers for Linux.
But what about
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
So I guess you approve of the reformulation of LGPL as an additional
permission on top of GPL, as in its draft at gplv3.fsf.org, right?
Yes. I think that part of the GPLv3 is a good idea.
That said, I think they are still pushing the you don't
On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from
the inside.
How about
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 are subject to copyright law and to
On Monday 18 December 2006 10:47, Dave Neuer wrote:
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or
On 12/18/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, okay. However I'm quite sure that there are more ways to accomplish the
tasks handled by the code in the header files (in most cases).
Well, that may be so. Unfortunately, Lexmark vs. Static Controls
actually says that even if there are
Hi :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But the point is, derived work is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
what copyright law defines.
Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work.
And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster.
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, since if you don't have permission to ship
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote:
I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
enforce distribution of source
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
made.
.. and then what does that mean? It
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:41:17PM -0200, 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,
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 are
On 12/18/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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 do?
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 not a derived
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 the FAQ
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 is in fact a
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 have
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
else, the
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 possible
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 likely
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. You
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 like a big
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 kicks in.
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, since
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 point I just
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 are subject to
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 are subject to
Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linus Torvalds writes:
>
>> Why do people think that using "ln" is _any_ different from using
>> "mkisofs". Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the
>> difference - really?
>
> The difference - really - at least for static
Linus Torvalds writes:
> Why do people think that using "ln" is _any_ different from using
> "mkisofs". Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the
> difference - really?
The difference - really - at least for static linking - is that "ln"
makes modifications to each piece
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
> > operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and
> > version) are inline
> I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
> operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and
> version) are inline assembly that are directly output into the code
> which uses them. As
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > 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
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
> > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
> > the FSF's position that
On Dec 17, 2006, at 08:54:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that a binary becomes a "derived work" of
any random library that it gets linked against? If that's not
"fair use" of a library that implements a standard
On Sunday 17 December 2006 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
> > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
> > the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably
> > have been
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
> don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
> the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably
> have been
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [...]
> >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
> > > done properly (and I think we use
On Sunday, 17 December 2006 11:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> > > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> > > buy some hardware labelled "runs
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> >> >Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> > buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's
> > with a Windows driver running
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
buy some hardware labelled runs under Linux, it could turn out that's
with a Windows driver running under
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
On Sunday, 17 December 2006 11:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
buy some hardware labelled runs under Linux, it
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
done properly (and I think we use it fairly
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably
have been shown
On Sunday 17 December 2006 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably
have been shown
On Dec 17, 2006, at 08:54:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you REALLY believe that a binary becomes a derived work of
any random library that it gets linked against? If that's not
fair use of a library that implements a standard library
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they
don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and
the FSF's position that anything that
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
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
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and
version) are inline assembly that are directly output into the code
which uses them. As a
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking
operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and
version) are inline assembly that
Linus Torvalds writes:
Why do people think that using ln is _any_ different from using
mkisofs. Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the
difference - really?
The difference - really - at least for static linking - is that ln
makes modifications to each piece to make
Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Linus Torvalds writes:
Why do people think that using ln is _any_ different from using
mkisofs. Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the
difference - really?
The difference - really - at least for static linking - is that ln
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:22:12AM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> OK, let assume your perspective of the history is the valid and real one,
> then, ¿where are all lawsits against other big GPL only projects? For example
> libqt/kdelibs. You can hardly provide any example where the GPL wasn't hold
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:56:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a
> company that is often located in a different country, and the only
> possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people
> who are
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:33:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > 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
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never
> > tried to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to
> > "distibution" of the covered program. The freedom
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> > to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> > I can
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never tried
> to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to "distibution" of the
> covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: "right to use the program
> for any
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
> the
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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_
>
> I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized
> that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and
^
> that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work"
...
> I find the RIAA's position and the
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
> because I think that you (as the "author") are in the type of authors
> you describe below :
>
> > Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use.
Sure.
On 12/15/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
101 - 200 of 424 matches
Mail list logo
