On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
certified,
In this case you might have grounds to enforce this restriction of the
network
them against an earlier draft? Those (for
obvious reasons) no longer appear against the current draft, but
they're still accessible by other means.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
already.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
of the software.
Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
I hope no one does this, but I still don't see how the GPLv3 draft deals
with this case, or even how it could deal with it.
It doesn't, and it probably shouldn't.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America
sure no one can acquire a
privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
the verification of unsigned software is just a warning, that
you can often bypass by telling the software to go ahead and install
it regardless of signatures.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler
On Jun 21, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
compatibility) introduced an additional permission to combine/link
with code
with the apache license
For the record, it doesn't, GPLv3 is going to be compatible with the
apache 2.0 license, no additional exceptions needed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
- the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of that code. Are you suggesting
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
network by only listening in, can you?
Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something that
GPLv3 should prohibit
On Jun 21, 2007, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFLA or Red Hat, with whom I'm
associated, and certainly
by pretending that mutual
compatibility with GPLv3 would set you back in any way?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
need mutual compatibility
provisions in both. Which is what I was proposing.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
opinion that GPLv3 potentially shifts the balance too far to the
licensee.
It's more
clear enough?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
to you that indeed it is not clear for whom you
speak with all that info in your signature and the email address you
post from.
Understood. Thanks for doing that so nicely.
I'm glad it's clear now.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
suppose you wouldn't given how strongly you
/14/117
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/432
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
disagree with you.
For the record, GPLv2 is already meant to accomplish this. I don't
On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
So you really didn't pay any attention to anything people told you?
Yes. Particularly to what Alan Cox
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
against a copyright holder, then it can't
it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
undesirable. Well, then, what can I say? I tried. :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org
built-in?) permission to combine with v2. I can
see that it boggles the minds not used to this kind of combination.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED
.
Thanks for listening.
o-o
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
that's all noise out
sent by Tivo to
make sure the kernel would stay GPLv2. :-)
:-) Dammit, how did you guess? :-) I even tried to disguise it by
insisting that GPLv2 already prohibits this practice! :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
interpretation upon other authors. Under copyright, it's the more
restrictive reading that prevails, in that any holder who understands
his rights are being trampled can enforce them. And since at least
one such author is vocal in his dissent, not even estoppel defenses
would apply. But IANAL.
--
Alexandre
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
Just because someone has
the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
theoretically accessible using the shipped
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
they distribute.
We don't oppose that you do
.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
* point at the sources you used, even in a
site that you don't control.
However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jun 26, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
download link.
This has never been
was written, it really was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list
network authentication, as above, so although
your device receives them, you can't get to them because they're in
the encrypted disk.
Does it seem to you that GPLv2 blocks any of these means to distribute
your code without granting its users access to the source code?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
shipping
can't override nature, but it can override the
distributor.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org
to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you
choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just
in case their downstream users might become your next target.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
the sources to pass them on would be copyright
infringement. Would a court see this as a restriction on distribution
imposed by the distributor? Or by the copyright holder?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
to you under copyright law,
namely the right of distribution and copying).
... and modification and, depending on the jurisdiction, execution.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because
On Jun 28, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva write:
The GPL does sometimes use the word may where it's not clear
whether it
means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
construction is that may means permission, unless there's some
it deliver its part of the copyright deal with
society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create
derived works from it because the source code remains unavailable?
http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy
.
The shorter cycle towards 3.20, which would make the 2 cycles towards
4.0 shorter than two usual cycles, may help relieve some of the pressure
to get features into 3.19, since the merge window for 4.0 won't be that
far off.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You
too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva lxol...@fsfla.org
---
arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b
CPUs
might face other problems when presented with Loongson2-specific icache
flush code too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva lxol...@fsfla.org
Fix for this issue has
from the various
well-known blobs within the firmware/ subtree and the assorted
blobs-disguised-as-sources that still often pop up in drivers/staging?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http
On Apr 3, 2014, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 3 April 2014 18:10, Alexandre Oliva ol...@gnu.org wrote:
FWIW, the same mistake is present in at32.
I will check others as well now :)
Thanks!
Reverting all the changes to loongson2_cpufreq.c in 652ed95d5fa makes
cpufreq work
in
cpufreq-info's output, and freezing shortly thereafter.
- static struct clk *cpuclk;
+ struct clk *cpuclk;
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin
s internal data structures. I.e., this probably
has nothing to do with GCC or the kernel.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicampoliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br
ntains a piece of binary firmware whose
source code is not there, could we either replace it with actual GPLed
code or remove the driver?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PRO
On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into
>> granting you power over not only the BK history
> It's exactly the same as a file s
eveloping such
software yourself, but only if someone else pays for it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire
>> > to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way?
e repository, that's all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
dn't have thought that's the way it works.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
s' license to use BK revoked. But
I probably can't afford it, oh well :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> The people we spoke with were far more interested in the ability to
> move people onto BK when they needed to.
They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unic
ng such tarballs offered from an rsync server,
compressed with gzip --rsyncable?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
art hacking arch or
> whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
> Linus license goes away.
Hey, cool! The nice thing is that I probably don't even have to start
hacking anything, I already (pretend to) maintain GNU CVS Utilities.
Can I volunteer to maintain is for OSDL
y Dell Inspiron 8000 has a Synaptics
touchpad as part of the Dualpoint pointing devices.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from
On Feb 3, 2005, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:14AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 2005, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:07:27 +0100, Vojtech Pa
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?
then?
(there's a hint at http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1 )
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu
y
grants you the right to copy small portions of copyrighted works for
personal use. http://www.petitiononline.com/netlivre
Remember that the GPL is not only about US copyright law or US
courts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member htt
the GPL to impose such a condition. But then, since nobody can be
forced to see the source code of a GPLed work, or any work for that
matter, acceptance is voluntary, and one shouldn't enter an agreement
one's not willing to abide by.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
mpatible code to fit.
So, even if condoning binary blobs were morally acceptable, we still
wouldn't be gaining anything from this relationship, we'd only be
enabling vendors to sell us their undocumented hardware while denying
us our freedoms.
Why should we do this?
--
Alexandre Oliva http
n explanation/comment would have been
> better. IMHO, IANAL. HAND.]
This bit would probably fit better in the spirit (preamble) than in
the letter. That's why I filed the comment about it in the preamble.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board M
RM technique to
an educational tool, that wouldn't impose any major inconvenience to
those who are entitled to use the combination of code that can't be
distributed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compi
ure releases. Then, if someone
interfaces with code that was already there before, they might claim
they're still entitled to do so. But if it's new code they interface
with, or new code they wrote after this clarification is published,
would they still be entitled to estoppel? FWIW, IANAL.
-
license, one of our
most valuable tools to make the world a better place. Is this what
you intend to do? I hope not.
Thanks,
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*might* turn out to be a relevant
distinction. E.g., if there's functional dependence of one of the
elements of the aggregate on another, is the aggregate work still the
result of mere aggregation?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
re aggregate, and thus
not be subject to the requirement that the whole be released under the
GPL?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Softwar
gs than just programs (and people have).
People do many odd things. How do you define source code and object
code to other things that are not programs.
> So you _always_ get back to the question: what is "derivative"? And the
> GPLv2 doesn't actually even say anything
tml
That's still a long way ahead (the 4.3 development cycle has just
started), but it wouldn't hurt to start fixing incompatibilities
sooner rather than later, and coming up with a clean and uniform set
of inline macros that express intended meaning for the kernel to use.
--
And even if you distribute them, you can choose whom to
distribute it to, and that might very well leave the 'back' out.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ck or give it forward. It's just
that, if you don't comply with the license, you don't have permission
to distribute the software at all.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
mp.br/~oliva/papers/free-software/BMind.pdf
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from
On Feb 16, 2007, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 2007, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
&
erived work from B, or
vice-versa, even before they're linked together.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED],
the binary is likely to be a derived work of the kernel,
even if the sources still aren't?
#include
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.o
ue fair use.)
One could try to argue it's an accessibility issue, if local fair use
has provisions for it. Even for manual translations.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [E
. In other words, to make a compatible catridge, you do have to
> use an original component. (Or at least, it's much more difficult not to.)
Besides, you *can* build a module for Linux without using any kernel
code. It just takes a lot of work to implement all you'd otherwise
need from the kernel
or GPLv3, and it would
have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
not? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software E
On Jun 12, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would
>> have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it
>>
On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
> hate it, it all still applys to the final draft.)
You mean all the misunderstandings? ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF L
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 2007, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > (see previous long thread about v3 and why the kernel developers
>> > ha
e ones that require most attention, mainly
because the home users are the ones with least (individual) power to
demand respect for their freedoms.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Eng
ou modify
it.
[...] if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
Can anyone show me how any of the provisions of GPLv3 fails to meet
this spirit?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Look, there was room for misunderstandings in earlier drafts of the
>> license. Based on the public comments, the wording was improved. I'd
>> like to
iVo did was permitted by the license.
Only courts of law can do that.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> [...] Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have
>> the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>> th
On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
>> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>> So, TiVo includes
gt; One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears to be the best strategy
> in game theory for continuous runs of the prisoners dilemma.
It is, indeed.
Now the remaining piece of the proof is to show that the GPLv2 is
tit-for-tat.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.b
be provable, and it's nearly impossible to prove
that an opinion held by someone is not his own. People quite often
arrive at similar opinions independently.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compi
while creating
the GPLv3, and adopted by its other proponents.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROT
301 - 400 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
