I don't see anything obviously wrong here...
Reviewed-By: Daniel Hazelton
On 12/20/2012 02:11 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/self
-page-flags.h: No such file or directory
Reported-by: Daniel Hazelton
Signed-off-by: David Howells
cc: Fengguang Wu
---
tools/vm/page-types.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/vm/page-types.c b/tools/vm/page-types.c
index cd1b03e..b76edf2 100644
--- a
After doing any build in the kernel (last attempt was an allmodconfig)
I've tried to build the 'vm' tool in tools/vm and the build fails -
looks to be fallout from the uapi header work.
[madman@localhost tools]$ make V=1 vm
make -C vm/
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/madman/sources/linux-2.6
On 07/06/2012 11:32 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
>> Cc: Kyungmin Park
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/ccg/ccg.c |8 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:10:34 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Yes, exactly two of them. One is non-trivial to get rid of - it's
> > used for encoding of filename before we write it,
>
> Why can't we do just
>
>
>
> UDF: Optimize stack usage
>
> Signed-off-by:
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
> > application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
> > and
>
> And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
> mate
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > > > > It makes no difference if you
> > > > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> > > >
> > > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > > > used in the intended, ordinary way. Yo
On Saturday 09 February 2008 23:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > It makes no difference if you
> > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> >
> > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor c
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
> > In other words "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" isn't his idea of "a good legal idea",
> > but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
> > eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
> > code. (In additi
On Friday 08 February 2008 14:08:21 David Newall wrote:
> I explained something poorly:
> > Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has
> > received, but he's been completely coy in the details.
>
> The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers
> say
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:36:33 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> >> PC. (This i
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
> > interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
> > pretty much impossible to test for
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer is
> failing to initialise:
>
> Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type me
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:42:47 Gabriel C wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Another problem is one I wasn't able to find any kind of trigger for,
> > other than just running XChat. Every so often XChat would seem to freeze
> > - but if run from the command line,
In a recent (haven't tested the latest git, but I have tested one pulled down
1/29 - I think it's 24e1c13) I see the following errors when the AES crypto
module is loaded:
[ 27.786935] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_it_tab
[ 27.786984] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_aes_set_key
[ 27.78
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >> >> Hello!
> >>
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 17:15:42 John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > If I put some heavy load on the iwl3945, then the network connection
> > gets stuck after a some time. To fix it I have to reload the module.
>
> Can you quantify this a
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:08:45 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:22 -0500,
>
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 14 January 2008 06:04:20 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Could this have anything to do with the following mess
On Saturday 12 January 2008 04:41:21 Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:02:53 +0100,
> >
> > Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> Hm... Just to be sure, try the patch below. It's a clean up patch
> >>> that I'd like to apply later.
> >>
> >> Sorry
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 23 Octo
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > &
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE("GPL"), IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their
> > > > driver just to pr
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:52:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
> > > > >
> > > > > Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.
> > > > > http://www.conitech.it/conitech/ita/ri
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=ope
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers, and SLFC (whi
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >>...
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers,
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> >> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
>
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> >
> > Link with outdated info.
> >
> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
> >
> > Link with ou
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
> Chris Friesen writes:
> > Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>US Copyright
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between ac
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
> > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
> > specifi
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The fact
> >>> remains that the pe
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> failing to act in another. We need not act in ev
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
> > "The license applies to the copyright holder"
>
> Of course not.
I'll
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The fact
> > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> > copyright
> > license has the right to revoke said grant of lic
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
> > - his code
> > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
> > and was only
> > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work t
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > > these licenses
>
(by the way, text in caps surrounded by *'s is meant to indicate vocal stress,
not volume)
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:18 David Schwartz wrote:
> > So I appear to have a
> > right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> > receives no right to use it except under th
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> > be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> > under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> > problem for the linux
On Monday 30 July 2007 14:35:13 Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
> Ok, lets kill the message. As Alois Nešpor also saw, that's fixed up by
> Yenta, so PCI does not have to warn about it. PCI could still warn about it
> if is_cardbus is 0 in that instance of pci_scan_bridge(), but so far I have
> not seen a
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:00:22 Ray Lee wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the problem is reading stuff back in from swap at the *same time*
> > that the application is reading stuff from some user file system, and if
> > that user file system is on the same drive a
On Saturday 28 July 2007 17:06:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >>> On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >> > On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >>
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
> > prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says "Its treating a
>
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:29:19 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Any faults in that reasoning?
>
> GNU sort uses a merge sort with temporary files on disk. Not sure
> how much it keeps in memory during that, but it's probably less
> than 150MB. At some point the dirty limit should kick in and write back the
>
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:08:44 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:45 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > So hrm. Are we sur
On Friday 27 July 2007 14:16:32 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Updatedb or another process that uses the FS heavily runs on a users
> > 256MB P3-800 (when it is idle) and the VFS caches grow, causing memory
> > pressure that causes oth
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:47:49 -0700 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > More sophisticated testing is needed - there's something in
> > > ext3-tools which will mmap, page i
On Sunday 22 July 2007 18:03:06 Bartek wrote:
> 2007/7/22, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > 00:1f.1 0101: 8086:27df (rev 02)
> > >
> > > Ok, this controller is supported.
> > > Did you forgot about CONFIG_PATA_MPIIX=y?
> >
> > MPIIX is for early Intel laptop (pentium era).
> >
> > If the chip
On Saturday 30 June 2007 08:02:16 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jörg,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:39:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 12:27 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
On Friday 29 June 2007 17:27:34 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 06/29/2007 11:05 PM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Indeed if its public domain you may have almost no rights at all
> >> depending what you were given. Once you get the source code you can do
> >> stuff but I
On Thursday 28 June 2007 00:45:18 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Section 3 doesn't apply to this situation. However, other sections
> > do. They are distributing in line with the distribution requirement,
> &g
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 22:37:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Behind a barrier is not on a medium customarily used for software
> > interchange, which 3a requires.
>
> Are you per chance claiming that you've never heard of anyone
> rece
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 19:49:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> remember, not all tivo models are locked down,
> >
> > Only the earliest that you can't find for sale any more, right?
> >
> >> as a result of w
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:06:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Tue
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
> >> tivoizatio
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > The GP
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:10:02 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at it, in depth, today but one of the problems I
> > saw was the apparent loopholes in the text. No specifics, but I
> > rememb
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
> >
> > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
>
> Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisio
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:57:20 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> And if you look at GPLv3dd1 or dd2 IIRC, that's how it started. For
> >> s
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:06:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >&g
On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With the GPLv2, you need to give your software modifications back, but
> > the
> BZZT!
> > GPLv2 never *ever* makes any technical limit
On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Yes. Anyone feels like enforcing the GPLv2 in Brazil?
> >
> > I don't know
On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
> >> ago, an
On Monday 18 June 2007 04:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
>
> Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
> certification, where it ha
On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
> >>
> >> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
> >> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to it
On Sunday 17 June 2007 15:32:34 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> What in the world makes you think there is a useful analogy
> >> between communication
On Sunday 17 June 2007 14:46:05 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> >> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> >> > c
On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
> > how TiVO devices actually
On Sunday 17 June 2007 02:27:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
On Sunday 17 June 2007 01:09:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> I've already explained what the spirit of the GPL is.
> >
> > No. You've explained one thing only: that you cannot see that people
On Sunday 17 June 2007 00:19:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> There may be laws that require certification or limitations on the
> >> user. M
On Saturday 16 June 2007 23:31:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But each of those arguments is based on a technicality.
>
> They're based on the Free Software definition, that establishes the
> four freedoms
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:54:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I obviously wasn't clear enough. The only way to come into complience
> > with GPL3dd4 is to reduce your ability to fix things or grant everyone
> > else the ability to mess wit
On Saturday 16 June 2007 21:49:56 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I d
On Saturday 16 June 2007 18:01:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In
On Saturday 16 June 2007 15:27:37 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see how TiVO has done this. They have placed no restrictions on
> > *modification* at all. What they have done is placed a restriction o
On Saturday 16 June 2007 04:21:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 20
On Saturday 16 June 2007 13:14:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:21AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > because it could easily be argued that they
On Saturday 16 June 2007 12:57:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> What this means for the FSF goals if Tivo get up one morning and switch
> >>> their system
On Friday 15 June 2007 22:16:30 Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What happens if you're debugging something you think is a bug in the
> > > Linux kernel and then you run bang i
On Friday 15 June 2007 23:44:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2007, Tim Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 23:29 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> Tivo has two choices: either it gives
> >> users the content they want to watch, or it goes out of business. Is
> >> that legi
On Friday 15 June 2007 20:22:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > it irreversibly cuts off certain people from being to distribute
> >>
On Friday 15 June 2007 19:39:57 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > > What matters is *my* intent in *choosing* the GPLv2, not *his*
> > > > intent in writing it.
> > >
> > > I beg to differ. By adopting _his_ license you adopted his view. [...]
> >
> > ianal, but fortunately that's not what the law is. Th
On Friday 15 June 2007 18:06:11 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > > I find it obvious that the GPL was meant to prevent such to be
> > > possible. This is what I mean by the "the spirit of the GPL".
> >
> > Umm. It may well have been meant by *rms*. But your argument fatally
> > falls down on the fact that
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:45:16 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Frid
On Friday 15 June 2007 17:24:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> PS: Note that Stallmans motivation was *SOURCE* *CODE* *ACCESS* -
> >> nothing
> >
> > else.
>
> Not, it was to be able to modify
On Friday 15 June 2007 16:04:15 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > You&#x
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:00 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> IANAL, but AFAICT it doesn't. Still, encoded in the spirit (that
> >> re
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:49:15 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 11:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Actually, I don't see where it explicitly states that it only covers
> > > derived work.
> >
> > See "Section 0":
> >
> > The "
On Friday 15 June 2007 15:37:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 15 June 2007 02:59:31 Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >> it doesn't say anything about being able to run a compiled version
> >> o
On Friday 15 June 2007 09:12:43 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If even linking was considered 'mere aggregation on a volume of a
> > > storage or distribution medium', then when would the 'But whe
On Friday 15 June 2007 09:02:54 Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:33:51AM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Incorrect. Read section 9 of the GPLv2. It's pretty clear that the "any
> > later version" clause is optional. Whats more is that since the
On Friday 15 June 2007 12:22:16 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:45:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > The way "collective works" work, there are two separate copyrights: there
> > is the copyright in the "separate contribution", which i
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:49:05 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-06-15 at 06:03 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > In other words, it applies to *SECTIONS* of the code, not to individual
> > object code files. This is why kernel modules can have their own,
> > separate li
On Friday 15 June 2007 07:32:01 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Ven 15 juin 2007 12:53, Jesper Juhl a écrit :
> > On 15/06/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > by your argument, the user has some "right to modify the
> >>
> >> software", on
> >>
> >> >> > that piece of hardware it b
On Friday 15 June 2007 07:45:22 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > And, as I've taken the time to explain to you, lacking any clear
> > statement, written at the exact same time as the license, a
>
> statement of
>
> > intent or spirit cannot have any real legal weight when the text of a
> > license is fin
On Friday 15 June 2007 06:18:59 David Greaves wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> Now for a different PoV:
> >> Do I think Tivoisation is bad for the community ?
> >> Of course I think it is but your mileage may vary.
> >
> > And I happen to agree with yo
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
