On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:31:14PM +0200, Marius ROMAN wrote:
Programming documentation is restricted also because the hardware is
full of bugs and like Theo said there is no errata for a lot of
hardware.
On the other hand, some vendors go as far as releasing even the schematics and
gerbers
Darren Spruell wrote:
On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
Who said it was?
If
Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open
source/free software user do about it?
Sue Linux for anti-competitive behavior?
//art
Artur Grabowski wrote:
Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open
source/free software user do about it?
Sue Linux for anti-competitive behavior?
Nah. You can't sue `linux,' complain to Greg Kroah Hartmann. Most
GPL fans don't want this
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:51:36PM +0100, Han Boetes wrote:
Most GPL fans don't want this deal at all.
Real GPL fans appear to be an increasingly diminishing subset of Linux
users today though. They're being supplanted by users who want snazzy
3D desktops and simply embrace ``Free Software''
* Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070213 23:00]:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
GPL isn't, but a NDA would require that the
On 2/14/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070213 23:00]:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
GPL
He might *actually* be telling the truth. Maybe not all NDAs are
conspiracies against us, but are just marketers trying to keep things
quiet, and beyond that the companies don't care. That code might
actually be readable!
--then again it might not. We'll see.
As an optimist, I tend to agree
Hello!
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:42:43AM -0500, Nick ! wrote:
[...]
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the
cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,
another implements them? Or is this covered when people say reverse
engineer?
That's
On 2/14/07, Nick ! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problems would be similar if one signed a NDA, and then released
code with a BSD license. GPL, however, _requires_ that the code be
shared, and so I imagine it will be more problematic. Seriously,
On 2/14/07, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the
cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,
another implements them? Or is this covered when people say reverse
engineer?
I imagine that's the
Programming documentation is restricted also because the hardware is
full of bugs and like Theo said there is no errata for a lot of
hardware.
On 2/14/07, Rod Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 10:42:43, Nick ! wrote:
...
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD
On 2/14/07, L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:24 AM 2/14/2007 -0700, you wrote:
No, the best case scenario is that the good intentions of the Linux
driver project would be focused on getting vendors to provide open
documentation from which any OSS project, including Linux, can produce
On Wednesday 14 February 2007 12:24 pm, Darren Spruell wrote:
On 2/14/07, Neil Joseph Schelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the
cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,
another implements them? Or is
On 2/14/07, Marco S Hyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, please educate me: couldn't a BSD driver be created by using the
cleanroom approach? One person reads the GPL code, writes specs,
another implements them? Or is this covered when people say reverse
engineer?
[...]
Thanks for
Hi,
I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of
curiosity took a look.
Free Linux Driver Development FAQ
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss
Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to free hardware
documentation? If it is, how can
On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of
curiosity took a look.
Free Linux Driver Development FAQ
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss
Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers efforts to
Jeff Rollin wrote:
Also as I understand it, they cannot work
under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the public.
They say quite the opposite at
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html:
Q: How are you going to write a GPL driver by signing an NDA? Is
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:38:51AM -0700, Steven wrote:
Hi,
I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of
curiosity took a look.
Free Linux Driver Development FAQ
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss
Is this bad news for the OpenBSD developers
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:04:08PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I happened to see this on the slashdot rss feed, and out of
curiosity took a look.
Free Linux Driver Development FAQ
On 13/02/07, Jack J. Woehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeff Rollin wrote:
Also as I understand it, they cannot work
under NDA's, so any specs released to them would be released to the
public.
They say quite the opposite at
http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/free_drivers_faq.html:
Q: How
* Darrin Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070213 12:30]:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:04:08PM +, Jeff Rollin wrote:
On 13/02/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Free Linux Driver Development FAQ
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/0220233from=rss
Is this bad news for the OpenBSD
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 12:59:52PM -0700, Steven wrote:
Which brings me back to the question, what can an OpenBSD/open
source/free software user do about it?
Well, since Greg Kroah-Hartman seems to be at the focal point of this,
he'd be a good person to educate as to why this solution isn't as
On 2/13/07 7:15 PM, Andreas Bihlmaier wrote:
I were the hulk, everything would have went green.
Why? If people want to use blobs or write copyrighted code or GPL
code, let them do so. Free world...
Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing?
There is no use to binary source drivers,
Actually, the FAQ specifically states that this is *not* about creating
binary blobs. As for any BSD involvement, GKH specifically states that he is
not involved in the development of any BSD. I am sure there are many BSD
devs who are not involved in Linux. For that matter, for all I know there
On 13/02/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07 12:12 AM, Jeff Rollin wrote:
Actually, the FAQ specifically states that this is *not* about creating
binary blobs. As for any BSD involvement, GKH specifically states that
he is not involved in the development of any BSD. I am sure
On 2/13/07, chefren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/13/07 7:15 PM, Andreas Bihlmaier wrote:
I were the hulk, everything would have went green.
Why? If people want to use blobs or write copyrighted code or GPL
code, let them do so. Free world...
Seriously WTF are those guys thinking? Nothing?
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
# Han
On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
You still don't get it. The problem is lack of
On 2/13/07, Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Darren Spruell wrote:
Instead we end up with a GPL driver that has to be reverse
engineered and we end up with the same problems we already have.
Since when is the GPL a close source license?
Who said it was?
If you mean what I said about the
30 matches
Mail list logo
