Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > I do not think that kqemu benefits from being closed source, and probably
> > more
> > people with me. People will pick an open implementation before any closed
> > one,
> > even industry, they're picking up faster than you think ;^)
> >
> > I did not agree with kq
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Anything released to the public by anyone is legal as long as it
> doesn't include (in it's content) parts of other people's
> copyrighted work. In this sense, kqemu can import whatever symbols
> it wants and have whatever license tag because when you download
> kqemu yo
My personal opinion:
Discussions of the GPL are like the bird 'flu -- any time
anyone offers any program for free and there is a
list/newsgroup about it, we know some "bird" will get the GPL
discussion 'flu. This is inevitable but we can't seem to
avoid it. And everyone who gets it, starts throw
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > I think that you are missing the point. He's not saying that you have
: > to distribute the source (which is what that exemption is about).
: > He's saying that the license on a mere library cannot and should no
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:58:07AM +0400, Brad Campbell wrote:
> Auke Kok wrote:
>
> I think you best re-read anything from Linus on that subject.
> What he has said is something derivative of the kernel.
>
> Now we have kqemu for linux, freebsd and windows and its all relatively the
> same code
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:05:56AM -0400, Leonardo E. Reiter wrote:
> 1. virtual machine software _is not_ trivial. Not by any means. It
> took my company about 20 years to fully develop what became Win4Lin 9x,
> if you trace its history back to before Linux existed (product called
> 'Merge').
On 11 apr 2006, at 17:25, Jim C. Brown wrote:
Actually, the reason ATi and NVidia don't open source their graphics
drivers is because they are both afraid that as soon as as they do
that, the other one will sue them into oblivion based on software
patents.
See http://wiki.ffii.org/Smirl041025E
> I think that you are missing the point. He's not saying that you have
> to distribute the source (which is what that exemption is about).
> He's saying that the license on a mere library cannot and should not
> force applications linked with that library to become a derived work.
> And he's righ
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > 4. There is a slippery slope here -
:
: There's a slippery slope both ways. If you assume vital parts of your system
: are going to be closed source then why bother with open source at all. Just
: use Windows
> 4. There is a slippery slope here -
There's a slippery slope both ways. If you assume vital parts of your system
are going to be closed source then why bother with open source at all. Just
use Windows or HPUX.
> if Linux kernel policies can change
> to force all kernel-space binding to be G
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sebastian Kaliszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Auke Kok wrote:
: > no matter how you turn Linus' arguments, he doesn't like anything else
: > than ports from windows driver objects linked, and I can really agree
: > with that. Whatever the laywers
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 05:14:59PM +0200, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 11 apr 2006, at 17:05, Leonardo E. Reiter wrote:
>
> >what if I am a hardware vendor in a desperately competitive market,
> >such as say, video cards. Releasing my source code to the driver
> >would mean giving up some IP th
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sebastian Kaliszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: andrzej zaborowski wrote:
: > Now, whether using kqemu together with a linux kernel will still be
: > legal is a different issue, but here the question is whether the user
: > is breaking the law, not th
On 11 apr 2006, at 17:05, Leonardo E. Reiter wrote:
what if I am a hardware vendor in a desperately competitive market,
such as say, video cards. Releasing my source code to the driver
would mean giving up some IP that allows me to surpass the
capabilities of my competitor for a few weeks
Hi Auke,
First, let me apologize for not giving you proper credit for suggesting
the MODULE_LICENSE fix to Fabrice. But, without starting a flame war
here, I want to respectfully disagree with a couple of points you make:
1. virtual machine software _is not_ trivial. Not by any means. It
Auke Kok wrote:
no matter how you turn Linus' arguments, he doesn't like anything else
than ports from windows driver objects linked, and I can really agree
with that. Whatever the laywers say about it is moot - only judges
listen to them and Open Source doesn't listen to laywers (in generally)
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
Now, whether using kqemu together with a linux kernel will still be
legal is a different issue, but here the question is whether the user
is breaking the law, not the author.
And then GPL explicitly allows user to do anything (s)he wishes, including
(but not limited
On 10/04/06, Leonardo E. Reiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it's not! In fact, in the latest version, he explicitly gives it a
> commercial ("Proprietary") license. He also does not import any
> exported GPL symbols from the kernel. In fact, if your claim is true,
Legally, even without the "
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Auke Kok wrote:
> I do not think that kqemu benefits from being closed source, and probably more
> people with me. People will pick an open implementation before any closed one,
> even industry, they're picking up faster than you think ;^)
>
> I did not agree with kqemu
> I do not think that kqemu benefits from being closed source, and probably more
> people with me.
Probably. But people got make for a living and I think that Fabrice
has every right to decide how to make it available. We all must be
thankfull that he give it away for free...
> People will pick a
Auke Kok wrote:
no matter how you turn Linus' arguments, he doesn't like anything else
than ports from windows driver objects linked, and I can really agree
I think you best re-read anything from Linus on that subject.
What he has said is something derivative of the kernel.
Now we have kqemu
Leonardo E. Reiter wrote:
No it's not! In fact, in the latest version, he explicitly gives it a
commercial ("Proprietary") license.
I actually submitted this as a patch to him through this list ;^)
I admit since I am a vendor, I have certain biases against forcing all
software to be GPL. H
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Auke Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:
: On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:20:54 +0200, "Hetz Ben Hamo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Fabrice is the owner of the KQEMU code, and he decides for his own
: > reasons to put the code under closed source license.
:
I second that, very emphatically!
- Leo Reiter
Brett (Mare) Henley wrote:
This is all very disturbing, Fabrice wrote an enhancement to qemu
that runs perfectly fine without KQEMU. Why should anyone have a problem
with what license he uses or terms he decides?
He wants a very reasonable price
This is all very disturbing, Fabrice wrote an enhancement to qemu
that runs perfectly fine without KQEMU. Why should anyone have a problem
with what license he uses or terms he decides?
He wants a very reasonable price for the source if you want it, pay
for it, if you don't. Don't. He makes the
No it's not! In fact, in the latest version, he explicitly gives it a
commercial ("Proprietary") license. He also does not import any
exported GPL symbols from the kernel. In fact, if your claim is true,
then the following very popular products violate the kernel license
agreement:
VMware
> I'm sure that Fabrice knows and that I'm beating a dead horse, but this is
> (strictly speaking, discussions pending ;^)) violating the linux kernel
> license agreement.
Actually it doesn't, as kqemu is not part of any kernel. it's just
another closed source module as nvidia's module as well a
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:20:54 +0200, "Hetz Ben Hamo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fabrice is the owner of the KQEMU code, and he decides for his own
> reasons to put the code under closed source license.
I'm sure that Fabrice knows and that I'm beating a dead horse, but this is
(strictly speakin
Fabrice is the owner of the KQEMU code, and he decides for his own
reasons to put the code under closed source license.
Thanks,
Hetz
On 4/10/06, Rakotomandimby Mihamina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to know why is kqemu not GPL?
> Would you know?
> --
> A powerfull GroupWare, CM
Hi,
I would like to know why is kqemu not GPL?
Would you know?
--
A powerfull GroupWare, CMS, CRM, ECM: CPS (Open Source & GPL).
Opengroupware, SPIP, Plone, PhpBB, JetSpeed... are good: CPS is better.
http://www.cps-project.org for downloads & documentation.
30 matches
Mail list logo
