On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:42:24 +0100 Alan Cox wrote:
| On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
| > That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a
| > matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you
| > need to patch it first to get
On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a
> matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you
> need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name
> attached to
Hello,
On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author
> > asked for it.
>
> Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
No, don't! There is on
On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked
> for it.
Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
don't like the new
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:34, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Paulo Marques writes:
> >>About the legal aspects of all this, they have been
> >>discussed extensively in the past. It is not about
> >>"hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about
> >>the derived work concept. Thi
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
> that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
> using hooks are illegal.
And they may be. As I said, your posturing doesn't matter. Using
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
> >
> > We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.
>
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not.
On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
>
> We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.
Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
that you thought Linux-specific proprietary d
Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
[...]
Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry
Linux users. I have already started contacting computer magazines and
news papers. I just cannot accept that people can care so little for
other people.
Kenneth
One incredibly burning question s
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:06:29 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry
> Linux users.
I love sensationalism. And you're really good at twisting the
facts my friend. People can still get their cameras working
just f
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
magazines and news papers. I just cannot accept that people can
care so little for other people.
These people do care, they created, wrote and/or maintain the Linux
kernel in the first place! They also are wise enough to care more the
long-term interes
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
>
> Try and see this from the developers perspective and then remember that he
> is a human beeing.
Hey, have you read the thread at all?
Respecting the developer is exactly why the code has been removed.
Being a developer gives you not only legal
At 21:29 2004-08-27, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
gray from a distribution standpoint.
AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR
Albert Cahalan wrote:
Paulo Marques writes:
About the legal aspects of all this, they have been
discussed extensively in the past. It is not about
"hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about
the derived work concept. This driver does absolutely
nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose i
Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
gray from a distribution standpoint.
AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
15 matches
Mail list logo
