On May 6, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/05/2009 09:29 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Hopefully the authors got any permission needed from nVidia. But
there's no evidence of that in the patch, and I don't know for a fact
that they did. Do you?
Yes. NVIDIA is aware
On 05/04/2009 10:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it is probably something that we could try to address with
Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner
yan...@broadcom.com). Have you reached out to him about your
concerns?
Nope.
Perhaps you should do that as
On May 5, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/04/2009 10:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
but it is probably something that we could try to address with
Broadcom and the owners of the code space, (specifically, Yaniv Rosner
yan...@broadcom.com). Have you reached out to
On Apr 30, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have
enough time to chase ghost issues where your personal stance on
licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at
this point that you
On 05/04/2009 09:15 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I'm pretty sure the definition of Fedora licensing policies does not
make room for blatant copyright violation, distributing code under
GPL+restrictions that is derived from GPL code. And, again, the GPL
violation is not firmware, it's driver
On May 4, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
Is this what you're talking about? (And if so, why couldn't you just
*#$ing say so?)
Message-ID: orfxfsndp8@oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
[...] it's a driver under a license that's not even compatible with
GPLv2?
On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Not enough of a clue that I wrote:
What if one piece of firmware is licensed under:
For what it is worth, when you begin a sentence in English with:
What if..., it is almost always a hypothetical scenario.
Had you written:
There is a case
On 04/30/2009 01:09 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Now, you don't have to report anything back to the list or to myself,
but please don't fail to do your job just because you can't stand me.
It's an important job, and the Fedora community counts on you to do it.
As to this specific point,
On Apr 26, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
If we find these non-redistributable firmware bits anywhere, we'd remove
them.
What if one piece of firmware is licensed under:
* This file contains firmware data derived from proprietary unpublished
* source code, [...]
*
*
On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
* [...] this software is licensed to you
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 [...]
*
* Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances may you combine this
* software in any way with any other $PARTY software
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:04 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Which of the two should be taken out so that the other can be
redistributable? Perhaps the latter, given that it's a driver under a
license that's not even compatible with GPLv2?
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
under your standards) with the other “derived from proprietary
unpublished source code”
Given that
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 01:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The copyright holder didn't permit the combination of the second piece
of code (which, being driver code rather than firmware, is software even
under your standards) with the other
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled to publish a combination of A and B.
If you create work A that is
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/29/2009 03:06 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Say I create two works A and B.
I publish A under a permissive license.
I publish B under a license that prohibits its combination with A.
Per your reasoning, you're entitled
On 04/29/2009 05:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
grep for the license notices I posted to find them in the Linux 2.6.29
source tree. (The firmware in driver A moved into firmware/ in
2.6.30-pre, but I haven't checked how or even whether the license
notices were adjusted)
Look. I'm a patient
On 04/29/2009 10:26 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Given all the opinions you volunteered as to this problem, it was just
reasonable for me to assume that you were (i) as aware of the issue as
Red Hat legal is, and (ii) misguided as to its seriousness, for people
who take legal issues seriously
On Apr 29, 2009, Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
My psychic powers not withstanding, you really shouldn't make
assumptions.
As I wrote, I made them based on your opinions. I honestly didn't
expect you to go about making strong assertions without having the
faintest clue as to
Hi
Planet GNOME points to this bug now which is apparently
non-redistributable firmware being included in Ubuntu for quite
sometime. Just a heads up to make sure we aren't having the same problem.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/223212
Rahul
On 04/26/2009 04:29 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Planet GNOME points to this bug now which is apparently
non-redistributable firmware being included in Ubuntu for quite
sometime. Just a heads up to make sure we aren't having the same problem.
20 matches
Mail list logo
