On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 17:41:00 +0200
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 5:13 PM, Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > But lets say that the b-tree code uses Linux-only primitives such as
> > kmalloc or spinlocks, and th
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 18:49:39 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It requires software that is *distributed* as part of a GPL
> > work to itself be GPL. At time of distribution, a kernel module is
> > neither using nor linked to the kernel.
>
> Oh, come on! You cannot turn a deri
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 05:10:04 +1030
David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, Alexander Terekhov has forwarded some links to me, relating to
> the question of whether or not a Linux kernel module can be original.
> Bear in mind that these links relate to U.S. Copyright Law.
Mercy, no, with fr
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:55:45 +0100
Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So how does that invalidate my point? Intel did jump through a lot
> > of hoops to avoid giving away the code that controls their radio.
> > When the regulatory daemon stuff got too much complaints, they
> > finally
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:46:08 +0200
"Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Marcel Holtmann writes:
> > > You driver was meant to be running as Linux kernel module and
> > > thus it is derivative work.
>
> On Feb 5, 2008 1:39 PM, David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:28:10 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:48PM +0100, Christer Weinigel wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800
> > Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In the end, it&#x
On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:38:11 +0100
Marcel Holtmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Christer,
>
> while the HAL case of Atheros might be still true despite the fact
> that an OpenHAL has been around for a long time now. The Intel
> argument is out of the picture since quite some time. The regulato
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the end, it's up to the copyright holders to enforce the license.
> And as I have stated in the past, a number of them have made public
> statements as to what they think about this issue. And it corresponds
> exactly with
Diego Zuccato wrote:
In the cited example it's illegal to go outside certain parameters
SOMEWHERE (if it was illegal everywhere, the the hardware shouldn't
allow it and the sw could do nothing... not considering hw mods).
Another example is WiFi: USA, Europe and Japan allows a different number
Pekka Enberg wrote:
Why are we discussing this again? The Linux kernel is distributed
under the GPLv2 and even though there are some legal gray areas
regarding derived work (think nvidia and ati binary blobs here), the
license is not friendly towards proprietary drivers at all.
Why? Because it
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:19:30 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do know that the current usbfs interface is a major pain, hence the
>work to create usbfs2. I know those developers could use the help in
>getting that cleaned up and into the kernel tree.
>Also see the rapid development the
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:02:32 -0800
Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, this is a patch that will be sent out in the next round to Linus
> for inclusion in 2.6.25.
>
> If anyone has any objections about it, please let me know.
Yes, I have objections and I've told you before.
> Over two y
12 matches
Mail list logo
