Hmmm. One can argue that the EXPORT_SYMBOL* are copyright
grants, and as such can't be freely edited, just like the
comments as
/* this module (C) 1999 Fulana Perez */
that are in the code. Removing such comments *is* illegal, and
editing EXPORTs can be, too...
Wouldn't this, if
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Now, it's possible that
On 4/13/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
US copyright italian author's right (diritto d'autore italiano)
--
compilation work ---
Glenn Maynard wrote:
By your argumentation, it doesn't seem that this is a decision the
author of the library (or kernel, or whatever) gets to make, but
rather something which is inherent in what's been created; they can
offer their own opinion on what constitutes an application's use of
the
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Interestingly enough, neither [1] nor [2] mention linking. Which makes
sense since the conditions they describe hold both before and after
linking.
[1]
On 4/15/05, Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip response to someone else's unattributed comments]
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:56:02PM -0700, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other
end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 10:13 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you
David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
collective work where the real intellectually-novel work was
to
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:21:42PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
It is enforcable and is called a rolling contract. Seminal case is ProCD,
Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Circut, 1996).
That
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your kernel
module is most
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0300, Humberto Massa
wrote:
Then all the people who think that creating a binary
kernel module requires creating a derivative work and hence
can be restricted by the GPL are wrong. Take that argument
up with them.
I took. Google my
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
symbols, then you are incurring in (b) above and your
kernel
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you make a kernel module that only uses something
EXPORT_SYMBOL()'d from the kernel, you are NOT in principle
writing a derivative work. If you use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()'d
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
It would be, if the license said it was. As it happens, the license
makes no mention of this, but does give explicit permission to make
any modifications desired.
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices,
But are they?
copyright
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the literary
David Schwartz wrote:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
ordering the parts. The creation of works that can be
linked together is not protected by copyright:
That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
the parts. The creation of works that can be linked together
is not protected by copyright: the
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:02:36AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
So am I (altough I *am* a para, after all). This does not
preclude him from being right, does it?
Nope, as I mentioned. You just seemed to put special weight on his
opinion on the topic.
Now, it's possible that they're wrong;
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:47:52AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
If EXPORT_XX are copyright notices, copyright *law* prohibit their
modification.
Um, but they're *not* copyright notices, no more than this sentence is a
copyright notice. You can't claim that a pizza is a copyright notice
and
On 4/14/05, Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
The FSF FAQ says that *all* software linking against GPL libraries must
GPL-compatible[1]. [2] contradicts the above even more directly.
Now, it's possible that they're wrong; there's the obvious theory, for
example, that they've
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
is that the presence of a
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
upheld in the USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by
Not copied to the overloaded linux-kernel list
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptions.
False.
Sean Kellogg wrote:
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance,
no contract, no exceptions.
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 06:55 am, Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 01:53:43 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
The definitions overlap.
[...]
But collective works that have their own copyright are derivative
works, and derivative works that have more than one original work are
collective works.
Thanks for the clarification.
In its light, I'm
On Wednesday 13 April 2005 03:09 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no
acceptance, which is a fundamental part of contract law. No
acceptance, no contract, no exceptions.
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
what
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like
beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its
bones disintegrated to dust.
On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:26:47PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
US copyright italian author's right (diritto d'autore italiano)
--
compilation work --- collective work (opera collettiva)
derivative work
[2] I don't think you can construe this paraphrase of the GPL authors
claims as meaning that a person using that grant is free to ignore the
conditions imposed by the GPL.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:49:44PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean hear... but I do know that
Francesco Poli wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright
law is not phrased in terms of derived - or that have
several native words which are given different explicit
meaning by the local law but would all need
David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you buy a
W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
image of your installation, under the fair use rights
(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could
transfer
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
e.g. an image
of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
distribute
that image freely?
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
you could
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The
The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
upheld in the USA.
If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a copyright
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:43:20 -0400 Raul Miller wrote:
[...]
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:21:40AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
In Italian author's right law (legge sul diritto d'autore), there
is no use of or definition for the term derivative work, AFAICS.
The law speaks about
Francesco Poli wrote:
I think it is: Italy *is* a member of the Berne Convention and
consequently cannot have an author's right law that differs too much
from other ones in the Berne Convention area (AFAIK)...
Italy signed Berne in 1887, and became a party to Berne 1971 in 1979. I
would expect
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:57:29AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
The law talks about collective
works and derivative works, and to a casual reader it appears as
though collective works are in some way different from derivative
works.
Why?
Are collective works and derivative works the
David Schwartz writes:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
David Schwartz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
place. See,
Henning Makholm wrote:
As far as I can see you are assuming that it is either a derived
work or mere aggregation, and cannot be both or neither. You then
That is because copyright law classifies them this way.
try to argue that because it is not a derived work, it must me a mere
aggregation. I
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with ld is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it
Michael Poole wrote:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
David Schwartz writes:
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or
You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could
it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is
no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to
withhold from me.
Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some activities
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
mention
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
phrased in terms of derived - or that have several native words
which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
all need to be represented as a
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:47:19 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:
(I wonder what happens in jurisdications whose copyright law is not
phrased in terms of derived - or that have several native words
which are given different explicit meaning by the local law but would
all need to be represented as
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
Giuseppe
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
work is by arguing
that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
your work and
they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, for
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just
placing the two parts side by side on a filesystem designed
for general storage of byte streams. There is more to say
about the situation than the naked fact that that
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
legally be copied with the permission of the author.
The way you stop someone from distributing part of
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Yes I would. Linking forms a tighter coupling than just placing the
two parts side by side on a filesystem designed for general storage of
byte streams. There is more to say about the
Scripsit Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
this is not that tricky at all, and that the mere
aggregation clause applies to the
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
On Sunday 10 April 2005 01:18 pm, David Schwartz wrote:
You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could it
do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is no right
to control the distribution of derivative works for you to withhold from
me.
and
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
you to restrict
the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
restrict the
distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what
it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
the program.
On
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
from the copyright holder saying this, to me, is the
preferred form for modification of the firmware and
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
this is not that tricky at all, and that the mere
aggregation clause applies to the combination, for various
reasons,
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
problems for the users.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
from the copyright holder saying this, to me, is the
preferred form for modification of
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
Humberto Massa wrote:
First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
possible.
From section 3 of the GNU GPL,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a court.
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation.
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:44:59 -0300 Humberto Massa wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
patents are problematic, and upto recently there where no software
patents in europe, so i don't really care. I am not sure about the
AFAIK software patents are still not effective in Europe (as in you
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on natural laws,
on stuff that's already patented, on stuff with clear prior art, on
trivial math operations and so on. Patents are being granted so quickly
there's no way of
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the
percieved problem, or the ones discussing it.
Matthew Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of
Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that the
openfirmware package was were the firmware came from. The person
obviously made a lot of statements without bothering checking out the
real source. Well it didn't come from there, I got it from Alteon
under a written agreement
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon
under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my right
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
is
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a crit :
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a crit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
Or to support advanced features which can be disabled.
TSO firmware is commonly used these days.
David Schwartz wrote:
Well whoever wrote that seems to have taken the stand that
the openfirmware package was were the firmware came from.
The person obviously made a lot of statements without
bothering checking out the real source. Well it didn't come
from there, I got it from Alteon under a
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
fine.
Then I would
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
