On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and,
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours
I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter
might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from
spouting conspiracy stuff and,
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly learnt a lot.
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't
fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights
you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a
translation).
Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly learnt a lot.
It's written in black and white, in the license.
Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
the Kernel.
Apart from that,
Greg KH has made his opinion clear, and you have said you understand
and don't debate that he holds this opinion, and his code is what you
said
> So, how are such companies any different from the myriad individuals
> and companies that use Linux on the desktop or in their server rooms
> without ever modifying it and who also contribute nothing back to the
> community? They are also, in many (most?) cases taking advantage of
> the free
On 2/15/07, Scott Preece <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far I have heard nothing but, "if you don't contribute, screw you."
> All this is fine. Just say so. Make it black and white. Make it
> perfectly clear what is an
r, instead of resorting to stupid half measures like
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
On 2/15/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:27:10PM -0800, v j wrote:
> You are right. I have not contributed anything to Linux. Except one
> small patch to the MTD code.
Oh, I am sorry. Seems like the German courts have spoken. I am not
sure about what, but they have spoken. Sorry for the confusion.
On 2/15/07, Richard Knutsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
v j wrote:
> On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-02
On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 21:16 -0800, v j wrote:
> This is in reference to the following thread:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
>
> I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
> popul
On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 21:16 -0800, v j wrote:
This is in reference to the following thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
popular in the embedded space. We
Oh, I am sorry. Seems like the German courts have spoken. I am not
sure about what, but they have spoken. Sorry for the confusion.
On 2/15/07, Richard Knutsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
v j wrote:
On 2/14/07, Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 21:16 -0800, v j
of resorting to stupid half measures like
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
On 2/15/07, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 10:27:10PM -0800, v j wrote:
You are right. I have not contributed anything to Linux. Except one
small patch to the MTD code. However, I don't think that is the point
On 2/15/07, Scott Preece [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So far I have heard nothing but, if you don't contribute, screw you.
All this is fine. Just say so. Make it black and white. Make it
perfectly clear what is and isn't legal. If we can't load proprietary
So, how are such companies any different from the myriad individuals
and companies that use Linux on the desktop or in their server rooms
without ever modifying it and who also contribute nothing back to the
community? They are also, in many (most?) cases taking advantage of
the free (as in
It's written in black and white, in the license.
Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in
the Kernel.
Apart from that,
Greg KH has made his opinion clear, and you have said you understand
and don't debate that he holds this opinion, and his code is what you
said
On 2/14/07, Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At least one of us is confused about that an embedded User is.
It seems to me that you are an embedded developer, not User.
I doubt that most Embedded Users care what their OS is,
or even know what an OS is.
I am not sure what the difference
I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason
I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the "higher
authorities". Linus, please save Linux!
vj
On 2/14/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On 2/14/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not everybody has to be a contributor. The reason Linux is popular is
> because of its openness. Take that away and see where it goes.
So tell us? where does it go?
You seem to have the experience already. You took an open linux,
added some
Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor.
Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state
openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims
On 2/14/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:16:28PM -0800, v j wrote:
Welcome to three months ago.
Here in the future, this was deemed a non-issue.
However this does highlight another problem.
End-users who take linux for use in embedded systems (espe
On 2/14/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor. I realize
that people who have contributed to the Linux Kernel have very valid points. It
is their sweat and blood. They have a right to protect what they have worked
on. I am
ically, whether a
device driver written for the Linux kernel is a derived work of the
kernel. Sounds like you didn't do your homework 3 years ago.
Why did you assume that linking a non-GPL module into the GPL Linux
kernel was legal? You have read the GPL right?
Lee
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL
This is in reference to the following thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
popular in the embedded space. We (an embedded vendor) chose Linux 3
years back because of its lack of royalty model, robustness and
availability
This is in reference to the following thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63
I am not sure if this is ever addressed in LKML, but linux is _very_
popular in the embedded space. We (an embedded vendor) chose Linux 3
years back because of its lack of royalty model, robustness and
availability
, whether a
device driver written for the Linux kernel is a derived work of the
kernel. Sounds like you didn't do your homework 3 years ago.
Why did you assume that linking a non-GPL module into the GPL Linux
kernel was legal? You have read the GPL right?
Lee
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 2/14/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor. I realize
that people who have contributed to the Linux Kernel have very valid points. It
is their sweat and blood. They have a right to protect what they have worked
on. I am purely
On 2/14/07, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:16:28PM -0800, v j wrote:
Welcome to three months ago.
Here in the future, this was deemed a non-issue.
However this does highlight another problem.
End-users who take linux for use in embedded systems (especially)
tend
Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor.
Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state
openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims to stop
people like
On 2/14/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not everybody has to be a contributor. The reason Linux is popular is
because of its openness. Take that away and see where it goes.
So tell us? where does it go?
You seem to have the experience already. You took an open linux,
added some
I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason
I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the higher
authorities. Linus, please save Linux!
vj
On 2/14/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If adding closed drivers
On 2/14/07, Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least one of us is confused about that an embedded User is.
It seems to me that you are an embedded developer, not User.
I doubt that most Embedded Users care what their OS is,
or even know what an OS is.
I am not sure what the difference
32 matches
Mail list logo
