On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit you to restrict
> the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to restrict the
> distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
>
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
>> part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
>> legally be copied with the permission of the author.
> The way you stop someone from
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
> > work is by arguing
> > that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
> > your work and
> > they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See,
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Every book in my book shelf is software?
>
> If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
Giuseppe
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
work is by arguing
that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
your work and
they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, for
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
legally be copied with the permission of the author.
The way you stop someone from distributing part of
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even
though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made
only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the
Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to
it.
How can the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
> > >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> > >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> >> point is that
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> >
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> > than RedHat?
>
> It's impossible to treat patents
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
>> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
>> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
>> point is that distribution of the
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on
> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
> subject to the
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > If your statement was
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
> in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
> be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
> >patents.
You have lots of "possible legal problems" of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
> > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
> > problems for the
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
> First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
> making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
> instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
> possible.
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> >an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> >disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the result
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
> to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
> from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
> preferred form for modification of the firmware
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [quoting me]
>
> >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> >> than in the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > > the
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> > the kernel.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > > legal risks than
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > > modifications to firmware. Personally I would
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
legal risks than commercial
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what
it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
the program.
On
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
this is not that tricky at all, and that the mere
aggregation clause applies to the combination, for various
reasons,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
from the copyright holder saying this, to me, is the
preferred form for modification of the firmware and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[quoting me]
No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
than in the situation that the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
initialization, without having the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
possible.
From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
The
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
problems for the users.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
You have lots of possible legal problems of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
time.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel,
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a court.
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation.
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
subject to the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
> file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already decided that
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[quoting me]
>> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
>> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
>> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
> Would you
> > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
> > but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
> > No-one is saying that the linker "merely aggregates" object
> > code for the driver; what *is* being said is: in the case of
> > firmware, especially if the firmware is neither a derivative
> > work on the kernel (see above) nor the firmware includes part
> > of the kernel (duh), it is
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
> reasons, with a great degree of safety.
When was this alleged conclusion
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > legal risks than commercial distributions, can you explain why Debian
> > exposes the
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the
> > driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
> > that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
> > you
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >...
> > The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> > novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily
> > muster
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we don't want to do so? I
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>...
> The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily muster
> the ressources to fight of a legal case, even one which is a dubious
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the
> driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
> that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
> you separate the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > > is only needed on old/buggy
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> > Or to support advanced features which can
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 17:01 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> >
> > As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
> > achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
> > discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 16:30 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> I don't recall anyone asking Intel to give theirs designs away. This
> thread is about:
>
> 1. (mainly) some firmware hexdumps present in the kernel source tree are
> either expicitly marked as being GPL'd or unmarked, in which case
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to where
one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its initialization,
without having the "source" that generated that microcode, we are in
a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their designs away.
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> initialization, without having the "source" that generated that
> microcode, we are in a lot of hurt.
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware, and
> not MICROcode. If somebody has decided to rename FIRMware to
> SOFTware,
Debian has undertaken to change the meaning of a whole lot of words,
including "software" and "free".
>
> "Richard" == Richard B Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware,
Richard> and not MICROcode.
Oh be real, there's no real difference between them and you know it.
It's all about where the bits are stored and what they tend to do
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
> simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
> fine.
Then I would
David Schwartz wrote:
>>Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that
>>the openfirmware package was were the firmware came from.
>>The person obviously made a lot of statements without
>>bothering checking out the real source. Well it didn't come
>>from there, I got it from Alteon
Hi Jes, long time without hearing about you :)
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Sven> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven
> Sven> wrote:
>
> Sven> Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be
> Sven> taken off ? I suppose
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> >is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> >Or to support advanced features which can be disabled.
>
> TSO firmware is commonly used
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a Ãcrit :
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> >
> > > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > > code
> >
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
>
> > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > code
> > for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
> Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that the
> openfirmware package was were the firmware came from. The person
> obviously made a lot of statements without bothering checking out the
> real source. Well it didn't come from there, I got it from Alteon
> under a written
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> code
> for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which is
> mentioned in acenic_firmware.h) since - as far as I know - firmware
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon
> under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
> the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
> under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > > weren't going to do it, but if you want to
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> Sven Luther wrote:
>> Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
>> not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even
>> easier, as the firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file,
>> and it just
101 - 200 of 393 matches
Mail list logo
