Re: Linux 3.6-rc7
On 09/24/2012 05:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: And pigs might fly :-) Perhaps; pigs cannot fly, but penguins can fly! :-P Unless, you didn't see this already : http://laughingsquid.com/flying-penguins-documentary-prank-on-bbc/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins Have fun! ;-) Tarkan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Linux 3.6-rc7
On 09/24/2012 05:01 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: And pigs might fly :-) Perhaps; pigs cannot fly, but penguins can fly! :-P Unless, you didn't see this already : http://laughingsquid.com/flying-penguins-documentary-prank-on-bbc/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins Have fun! ;-) Tarkan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:49:16 -0500 Jerry Geis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am using centos 5.1, 2.6.23.9 kernel. Machine works great all day. Then sometime through the night the kernel dies, the trace is below. is this when a 3D screensaver is active? Probably worth running without the proprietary nvidia driver it also tends to get more people to pay attention :) In addition to this suspicion; you're the first one to report this oops since at least a year as shown in http://www.kerneloops.org/guilty.php?guilty=journal_dirty_data=2.6.23-release=1540096=1572863 so it might well be something weird on your side (like the binary driver or some heat problem created by having a 3D screensaver) Hi, For a while, I have the same behavior. I tested under 2.6.23.9, 2.6.24-rc3 and rc4. So all of these kernels have the same issue. Also, I don't use any proprietary driver. My video card is Intel-945 and I use the "intel" driver. I use 3D screensavers as well. These kernels die after some long idles like 1 or 2 days after. My distribution is Kubuntu 7.10 and with Kubuntu kernel this behavior did not happened. So, how to track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-) Cheers, Tarkan Erimer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:49:16 -0500 Jerry Geis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using centos 5.1, 2.6.23.9 kernel. Machine works great all day. Then sometime through the night the kernel dies, the trace is below. is this when a 3D screensaver is active? Probably worth running without the proprietary nvidia driver it also tends to get more people to pay attention :) In addition to this suspicion; you're the first one to report this oops since at least a year as shown in http://www.kerneloops.org/guilty.php?guilty=journal_dirty_dataversion=2.6.23-releasestart=1540096end=1572863 so it might well be something weird on your side (like the binary driver or some heat problem created by having a 3D screensaver) Hi, For a while, I have the same behavior. I tested under 2.6.23.9, 2.6.24-rc3 and rc4. So all of these kernels have the same issue. Also, I don't use any proprietary driver. My video card is Intel-945 and I use the intel driver. I use 3D screensavers as well. These kernels die after some long idles like 1 or 2 days after. My distribution is Kubuntu 7.10 and with Kubuntu kernel this behavior did not happened. So, how to track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-) Cheers, Tarkan Erimer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: well... try to get the oops message out; for many causes of crash that's a good way to find out what happened... (not always, but it allows us to find patterns if nothing else) Unfortunately, I couldn't get the oops message. Because when this behavior happens, the machine hardly freezes and the SysRq combinations do not work. Also, I checked the logs (message,syslog,kern.log etc.) to see something suspicious. Unfortunately, there was none. Just one thing I noticed when investigating on the logs: the kernel is doing its regular jobs. Like cron etc. So, the kernel is not really dieing. Next time, I will try to ssh to my machine to check what's going on, when this behavior occurred. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:49:16 -0500 Jerry Geis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am using centos 5.1, 2.6.23.9 kernel. Machine works great all day. Then sometime through the night the kernel dies, the trace is below. is this when a 3D screensaver is active? Probably worth running without the proprietary nvidia driver it also tends to get more people to pay attention :) In addition to this suspicion; you're the first one to report this oops since at least a year as shown in http://www.kerneloops.org/guilty.php?guilty=journal_dirty_data=2.6.23-release=1540096=1572863 so it might well be something weird on your side (like the binary driver or some heat problem created by having a 3D screensaver) Hi, For a while, I have the same behavior. I tested under 2.6.23.9, 2.6.24-rc3 and rc4. So all of these kernels have the same issue. Also, I don't use any proprietary driver. My video card is Intel-945 and I use the "intel" driver. I use 3D screensavers as well. These kernels die after some long idles like 1 or 2 days after. My distribution is Kubuntu 7.10 and with Kubuntu kernel this behavior did not happened. So, how to track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-) Cheers, Tarkan Erimer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:49:16 -0500 Jerry Geis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am using centos 5.1, 2.6.23.9 kernel. Machine works great all day. Then sometime through the night the kernel dies, the trace is below. is this when a 3D screensaver is active? Probably worth running without the proprietary nvidia driver it also tends to get more people to pay attention :) In addition to this suspicion; you're the first one to report this oops since at least a year as shown in http://www.kerneloops.org/guilty.php?guilty=journal_dirty_dataversion=2.6.23-releasestart=1540096end=1572863 so it might well be something weird on your side (like the binary driver or some heat problem created by having a 3D screensaver) Hi, For a while, I have the same behavior. I tested under 2.6.23.9, 2.6.24-rc3 and rc4. So all of these kernels have the same issue. Also, I don't use any proprietary driver. My video card is Intel-945 and I use the intel driver. I use 3D screensavers as well. These kernels die after some long idles like 1 or 2 days after. My distribution is Kubuntu 7.10 and with Kubuntu kernel this behavior did not happened. So, how to track this interesting problem ? Any ideas welcomed :-) Cheers, Tarkan Erimer -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Kernel BUG in 2.6.23.9
Arjan van de Ven wrote: well... try to get the oops message out; for many causes of crash that's a good way to find out what happened... (not always, but it allows us to find patterns if nothing else) Unfortunately, I couldn't get the oops message. Because when this behavior happens, the machine hardly freezes and the SysRq combinations do not work. Also, I checked the logs (message,syslog,kern.log etc.) to see something suspicious. Unfortunately, there was none. Just one thing I noticed when investigating on the logs: the kernel is doing its regular jobs. Like cron etc. So, the kernel is not really dieing. Next time, I will try to ssh to my machine to check what's going on, when this behavior occurred. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[no subject]
subscribe linux-kernel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[no subject]
subscribe linux-kernel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response: I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together, we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the sincerity of the offer, I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll cook, you bring the wine. A mashup in the truest sense. Best, Jonathan President, Chief Executive Officer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty Really very very interesting! This words reminded me the same dialogues and affair, between "Linus" and "Steve Jobs", that have been happened several years ago :-) Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi Linus, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it not? ;-) Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in this to actually further some open-source agenda. Here's a cynical prediction (but backed up by past behaviour of Sun): - first off: they may be talking a lot more than they are or ever will be doing. How many announcements about Sun and Linux have you seen over the years? And how much of that has actually happened? - They may like open source, but Linux _has_ hurt them in the marketplace. A lot. They almost used to own the chip design market, and it took quite a long time before the big EDA vendors ported to Linux (and x86-64 in particular). But when they did, their chip design market just basically disappeared: sparc performance is so horribly bad (especially on a workstation kind of setup), that to do chip design on them is just idiotic. Which is not to say that there aren't holdouts, but let's face it, for a lot of things, Solaris is simply the wrong choice these days. Ergo: they sure as hell don't want to help Linux. Which is fine. Competition is good. - So they want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do *not* want to give anything back (especially ZFS, which seems to be one of their very very few bright spots). - Ergo: they'll not be releasing ZFS and the other things that people are drooling about in a way that lets Linux use them on an equal footing. I can pretty much guarantee that. They don't like competition on that level. They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris: who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_). Completely agreed :-) End result: - they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more "open source" they can position themselves, the better. Definitely. They already began to pull some people like Ian Murdock. And I'm really very disappointed of this move,Ian did. Especially, such a person who has very good reputation and high profile in the Linux Community. He immediately shut down his company (also leaved Linux-Foundation) and joined to sun. After joining, he made statements like "How to make Solaris more like Linux ?" etc. Like a 40 years employee at Sun. Another interesting thing is the timing of this hiring. So, this situation is a good example of it. - They may release the uninteresting parts under some fine license. See the OpenSolaris stuff - instead of being blinded by the code they _did_ release under an open source license, ask yourself what they did *not* end up releasing. Ask yourself why the open source parts are not ready to bootstrap a competitive system, or why they are released under licenses that Sun can make sure they control. So the _last_ thing they want to do is to release the interesting stuff under GPLv2 (quite frankly, I think the only really interesting thing they have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux). Yes, they finally released Java under GPLv2, and they should be commended for that. But you should also ask yourself why, and why it took so long. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other Java implementations started being more and more relevant? Am I cynical? Yes. Do I expect people to act in their own interests? Hell yes! That's how things are _supposed_ to happen. I'm not at all berating Sun, what I'm trying to do here is to wake people up who seem to be living in some dream-world where Sun wants to help people. So to Sun, a GPLv3-only release would actually let them look good, and still keep Linux from taking their interesting parts, and would allow them to take at least parts of Linux without giving anything back (ahh, the joys of license fragmentation). Of course, they know that. And yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that I'm willing to go to the effort of trying to relicense the kernel. But quite frankly, I can almost guarantee that Sun won't release ZFS under the GPLv3 even if they release other parts. Because if they did, they'd lose the patent protection. And yes, I'm cynical, and yes, I hope I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'll very happily retract anything cynical I said about Sun. They _have_ done great things, and maybe I'm just too pessimistic about all the history I've seen of Sun with open source. The _good_ news is that Jonathan
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi Linus, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Per this reasoning, Sun wouldn't be waiting for GPLv3, and it would have already released the OpenSolaris kernel under GPLv2, would it not? ;-) Umm. You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sun is in this to actually further some open-source agenda. Here's a cynical prediction (but backed up by past behaviour of Sun): - first off: they may be talking a lot more than they are or ever will be doing. How many announcements about Sun and Linux have you seen over the years? And how much of that has actually happened? - They may like open source, but Linux _has_ hurt them in the marketplace. A lot. They almost used to own the chip design market, and it took quite a long time before the big EDA vendors ported to Linux (and x86-64 in particular). But when they did, their chip design market just basically disappeared: sparc performance is so horribly bad (especially on a workstation kind of setup), that to do chip design on them is just idiotic. Which is not to say that there aren't holdouts, but let's face it, for a lot of things, Solaris is simply the wrong choice these days. Ergo: they sure as hell don't want to help Linux. Which is fine. Competition is good. - So they want to use Linux resources (_especially_ drivers), but they do *not* want to give anything back (especially ZFS, which seems to be one of their very very few bright spots). - Ergo: they'll not be releasing ZFS and the other things that people are drooling about in a way that lets Linux use them on an equal footing. I can pretty much guarantee that. They don't like competition on that level. They'd *much* rather take our drivers and _not_ give anythign back, or give back the stuff that doesn't matter (like core Solaris: who are you kidding - Linux code is _better_). Completely agreed :-) End result: - they'll talk about it. They not only drool after our drivers, they drool after all the _people_ who write drivers. They'd love to get kernel developers from Linux, they see that we have a huge amount of really talented people. So they want to talk things up, and the more open source they can position themselves, the better. Definitely. They already began to pull some people like Ian Murdock. And I'm really very disappointed of this move,Ian did. Especially, such a person who has very good reputation and high profile in the Linux Community. He immediately shut down his company (also leaved Linux-Foundation) and joined to sun. After joining, he made statements like How to make Solaris more like Linux ? etc. Like a 40 years employee at Sun. Another interesting thing is the timing of this hiring. So, this situation is a good example of it. - They may release the uninteresting parts under some fine license. See the OpenSolaris stuff - instead of being blinded by the code they _did_ release under an open source license, ask yourself what they did *not* end up releasing. Ask yourself why the open source parts are not ready to bootstrap a competitive system, or why they are released under licenses that Sun can make sure they control. So the _last_ thing they want to do is to release the interesting stuff under GPLv2 (quite frankly, I think the only really interesting thing they have is ZFS, and even there, I suspect we'd be better off talking to NetApp, and seeing if they are interested in releasing WAFL for Linux). Yes, they finally released Java under GPLv2, and they should be commended for that. But you should also ask yourself why, and why it took so long. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other Java implementations started being more and more relevant? Am I cynical? Yes. Do I expect people to act in their own interests? Hell yes! That's how things are _supposed_ to happen. I'm not at all berating Sun, what I'm trying to do here is to wake people up who seem to be living in some dream-world where Sun wants to help people. So to Sun, a GPLv3-only release would actually let them look good, and still keep Linux from taking their interesting parts, and would allow them to take at least parts of Linux without giving anything back (ahh, the joys of license fragmentation). Of course, they know that. And yes, maybe ZFS is worthwhile enough that I'm willing to go to the effort of trying to relicense the kernel. But quite frankly, I can almost guarantee that Sun won't release ZFS under the GPLv3 even if they release other parts. Because if they did, they'd lose the patent protection. And yes, I'm cynical, and yes, I hope I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'll very happily retract anything cynical I said about Sun. They _have_ done great things, and maybe I'm just too pessimistic about all the history I've seen of Sun with open source. The _good_ news is that Jonathan
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: FYI, Jonathan Schwartz' response: I wanted you to hear this from me directly. We want to work together, we want to join hands and communities - we have no intention of holding anything back, or pulling patent nonsense. And to prove the sincerity of the offer, I invite you to my house for dinner. I'll cook, you bring the wine. A mashup in the truest sense. Best, Jonathan President, Chief Executive Officer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/one_plus_one_is_fifty Really very very interesting! This words reminded me the same dialogues and affair, between Linus and Steve Jobs, that have been happened several years ago :-) Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their horrible previous Java license. Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3 finalized and released. that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-) Totally agreed :-) You mentioned "dtrace" and "ZFS". Firstly, Linux already has a "dtrace" equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest), the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today. Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-) Ingo Yep, it is clear that sun needs more things like drivers etc. to make OpenSolaris more usable and user friendly. Here is an article about this subject and some thoughts of Ian (Murdock) about it ;-) http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Sun-hopes-for-Linux-like-Solaris/0,130061733,339276057,00.htm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: You might as well have said "the moon is made out of cheese" and i'd not have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only "example" you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks, Ingo I think, you do not want to understand what I really mean. OK,I stopping here. Because, you already wasted a lot of my time via always not understanding what I really mean. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at all. I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my predictions. Linus (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their horrible previous Java license. Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications that Sun is very willing to,at least, "Dual-License" the OpenSolaris with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3 finalized and released. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in it. [...] actually, what you said was this: " I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). " Why don't you include the last sentence I wrote: "So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) " So, that's why I said it. Because, as all the time, we did it: Importing and exporting codes to/from different open source projects. and to that the answer was: " The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to accept GPLv3 [...] " in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a specific action, but why did you then include a factually false 'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully? Ingo As I mentioned in my previous posts: This is **not** in the hands of the "OpenSolaris Community" to make and apply such decision. Sun itself **will decide** it. Also, there are strong indications that Sun is very interested to make "OpenSolaris" at least "Dual-Licensed" with GPLv3. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks, Ingo I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris Community nor the Linux Community. Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in it. Son, including an example related to OpenSolaris does not mean that I want to push OpenSolaris things. That's all. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Al Viro wrote: Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking that exciting thread to more appropriate place? I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully. However, what is your suggestion ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
debian developer wrote: On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: debian developer wrote: > On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: >> >> >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright >> owner can >> >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the >> >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law >> orders at >> >> > this point for copyright holding ? >> >> >> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. >> >> >> >> David Lang >> > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better >> idea to >> > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting >> such 90+ >> > years! >> >> exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active >> developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 >> (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is >> better it > > Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of > the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers > should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel > community can discuss the future steps. Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the linux kernel. It is not because of the sake of the tools and we have no capable enough developers. It's just about an example that came to my mind, as I mentioned before and also,it is the same thing as we, all the time, did. I mean getting and sharing codes from many different open source projects like BSD and countless others. So, OpenSolaris makes no difference at this. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote: I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to change their minds? It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking about "Dual Licensing" or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the "OpenSolaris Community" do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands of "Sun" not the "OpenSolaris Community". Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Greg KH wrote: On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 05:21:53PM +0300, Tarkan Erimer wrote: I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to accept GPLv3, why not discuss this with them if you want to try to change their minds? It was just an example came to my mind at first when thinking about Dual Licensing or upgrading Linux Kernel to the GPLv3. Yeah maybe,the OpenSolaris Community do not want GPLv3. But; IMHO, it is in the hands of Sun not the OpenSolaris Community. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
debian developer wrote: On 6/10/07, Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: debian developer wrote: On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. David Lang Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+ years! exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel community can discuss the future steps. Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) I don't think that upgrading to GPLv3 just for the sake of tools present in some other software should be the reason. We are capable enough of developing our own tools, and many experienced people are working on equivalent(etx4 etc.,) and much sophisticated tools for the linux kernel. It is not because of the sake of the tools and we have no capable enough developers. It's just about an example that came to my mind, as I mentioned before and also,it is the same thing as we, all the time, did. I mean getting and sharing codes from many different open source projects like BSD and countless others. So, OpenSolaris makes no difference at this. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Al Viro wrote: Perhaps. However, since the only thing in hands of your kind of advocates is best not mentioned on a family-friendly maillist, may I suggest taking that exciting thread to more appropriate place? I don't think that this thread is going unfriendly or harmfully. However, what is your suggestion ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: if you want to change the minds of the OpenSolaris community, i'd proffer that it's perhaps more efficient to talk to them, not to the linux-kernel mailing list. Thanks, Ingo I do not want to and try to change anyone's mind: nor the Open Solaris Community nor the Linux Community. Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in it. Son, including an example related to OpenSolaris does not mean that I want to push OpenSolaris things. That's all. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Just, I asked simple question and included a simple example in it. [...] actually, what you said was this: I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). Why don't you include the last sentence I wrote: So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) So, that's why I said it. Because, as all the time, we did it: Importing and exporting codes to/from different open source projects. and to that the answer was: The OpenSolaris community has already stated that they do not want to accept GPLv3 [...] in other words: your hypothetical is false today. You called us to do a specific action, but why did you then include a factually false 'example' to underline that point of yours? Or if you simply did not know about the OpenSolaris community's position beforehand, why dont you just admit that and withdraw from that line of argument gracefully? Ingo As I mentioned in my previous posts: This is **not** in the hands of the OpenSolaris Community to make and apply such decision. Sun itself **will decide** it. Also, there are strong indications that Sun is very interested to make OpenSolaris at least Dual-Licensed with GPLv3. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Linus Torvalds wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: I have yet to see any actual *reasons* for licensing under the GPLv3, though. Btw, if Sun really _is_ going to release OpenSolaris under GPLv3, that _may_ be a good reason. I don't think the GPLv3 is as good a license as v2, but on the other hand, I'm pragmatic, and if we can avoid having two kernels with two different licenses and the friction that causes, I at least see the _reason_ for GPLv3. As it is, I don't really see a reason at all. I personally doubt it will happen, but hey, I didn't really expect them to open-source Java either(*), so it's not like I'm infallible in my predictions. Linus (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their horrible previous Java license. Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications that Sun is very willing to,at least, Dual-License the OpenSolaris with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3 finalized and released. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: You might as well have said the moon is made out of cheese and i'd not have quoted it either. Why? Because it's irrelevant to the fundamental point that was raised and which you keep ignoring: that the only example you cited is a hypothetical that is currently false. In any case, speculation about what Sun might or might not do, up until the point it actually does it, is not something i feel compelled to do anything over, so please stop wasting my time by Cc:-ing me. Thanks, Ingo I think, you do not want to understand what I really mean. OK,I stopping here. Because, you already wasted a lot of my time via always not understanding what I really mean. Regards, Tarkan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Ingo Molnar wrote: * Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (*) And I've been pushing for that since before they even released it - I walked out on Bill Joy at a private event where they discussed their horrible previous Java license. Thanks for making things more clear :-) Some really strong indications that Sun is very willing to,at least, Dual-License the OpenSolaris with GPLv3. I think; in a very short time; we will see when the GPLv3 finalized and released. that would certainly be a good and productive move from them. Note the issue that others have pointed out to you: OpenSolaris is probably more interested in picking up code from Linux than the other way around! :-) Totally agreed :-) You mentioned dtrace and ZFS. Firstly, Linux already has a dtrace equivalent. Secondly, ZFS might be interesting in theory, although our prior experience of having compatibly-licensed filesystems ported over to Linux has been pretty negative: XFS ended up being an integration nightmare - and that doesnt have to do anything with the qualities of XFS (it's one of the cleanest Linux filesystems, if not the cleanest), the problem is that components within a kernel are very tightly integrated and rarely does it make sense to port over more than just drivers or maybe libraries. And that's i guess what OpenSolaris lacks and which i suspect it is mostly interested in: lots of nice Linux drivers ;-) XFS, the largest Linux filesystem is 100K lines of code - and ZFS (i've never seen it) is very likely smaller than that. Linux drivers on the other hand, as of today, are _3.7 million_ lines of code and enable Linux to run on 99% of the hardware that is produced today. Guess which one has the larger strategic significance? ;-) Ingo Yep, it is clear that sun needs more things like drivers etc. to make OpenSolaris more usable and user friendly. Here is an article about this subject and some thoughts of Ian (Murdock) about it ;-) http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Sun-hopes-for-Linux-like-Solaris/0,130061733,339276057,00.htm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
debian developer wrote: On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: >> > And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can >> > hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the >> > copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at >> > this point for copyright holding ? >> >> I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. >> >> David Lang > Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to > replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+ > years! exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel community can discuss the future steps. Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should "Dual License" the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300 From: Tarkan Erimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL > > V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. > > So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and > > others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to > > GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission > > who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or > > dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the > > maintainers' permission. > > > You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission > of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. > Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate > probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get > everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically > impossible. > And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to new APIs. Ask them all, I think? MfG, JBG And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. David Lang Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+ years! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi Neil, Neil Brown wrote: On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically impossible. So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically impossible. And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to new APIs. Ask them all, I think? MfG, JBG And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi David, David Schwartz wrote: But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too. That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides: 1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are made to a project that's not dual-licensed. 2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2 licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license. And, last and probably most serious: 3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way. Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for me :-) BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux Kernel is using which version of GPL : http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting. Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under "GPLv2 Only" and the rest is "GPLv2 or above","GPL-Version not specified,others that have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the code is "GPLv2 or above" licensed. And also stated in the article that some of the codes should be "Dual Licensed" not the whole Linux kernel needed to be "Dual Licensed". So,if it is really like this, maybe we can make,for example: "File system related Codes", "Dual Licensed" and it will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people or other things maybe ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi David, David Schwartz wrote: But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too. That is a misleading claim. While being dual-licensed would make it either for other projects to adopt Linux code, it would have three downsides: 1) If Linux code were adopted into other projects that were not dual-licensed, changes could not be imported back into Linux unless the changes were dual-licensed which is not likely when the contributions are made to a project that's not dual-licensed. 2) Linux could no longer take code from other projects that are GPL v2 licensed unless it could obtain them under a dual license. And, last and probably most serious: 3) Linux derivatives could be available with just a GPL v3 license and no GPL v2. license if the derivers wanted things that way. Thanks for the corrections ;-) The whole picture is more clear now for me :-) BTW,I found a really interesting blog entry about which code in Linux Kernel is using which version of GPL : http://6thsenseless.blogspot.com/2007/02/how-much-linux-kernel-code-is-gpl-2.html The work done on a Linux 2.6.20. The result is quite interesting. Because almost half (Around %60 of the code licensed under GPLv2 Only and the rest is GPLv2 or above,GPL-Version not specified,others that have not stated which and what version of License has been used) of the code is GPLv2 or above licensed. And also stated in the article that some of the codes should be Dual Licensed not the whole Linux kernel needed to be Dual Licensed. So,if it is really like this, maybe we can make,for example: File system related Codes, Dual Licensed and it will allow us to port ZFS from OpenSolaris requested by a lot of people or other things maybe ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically impossible. And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to new APIs. Ask them all, I think? MfG, JBG And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi Neil, Neil Brown wrote: On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically impossible. So, does it mean we can change the license of the dead people's code ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:43:28 +0300 From: Tarkan Erimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-09 15:57:55 +1000, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday June 9, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPLV2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus andothers, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License toGPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permissionwho contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost ordead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all themaintainers' permission. You don't need the permission of maintainers. You need the permission of copyright owners. The two groups overlap, but are not the same. Dead people cannot own anything, even copyright. Their estate probably can. I don't think it is theoretically impossible to get everyone's permission, though it may be quite close to practically impossible. And the next question is: How much copyright does a copyright owner own? For example, think of drivers written by one person, but a small number of lines changed here and there by others to adopt the code to new APIs. Ask them all, I think? MfG, JBG And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. David Lang Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+ years! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
debian developer wrote: On 6/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Tarkan Erimer wrote: And maybe another questions should be : How long a copyright owner can hold the copyright, if died or lost for sometime ? if died, the copyright still should be valid or not ? If lost, what the law orders at this point for copyright holding ? I believe that in the US it's life + 90 years. David Lang Hmm... Really,it is damn too much time to wait! It's really better idea to replace the code of this person as said before instead of waiting such 90+ years! exactly, however as others are pointing out, there are a lot of active developers who do not agree with some of the key points of the GPLv3 (including Linus), so until you convince them that the GPLv3 is better it Last heard, Linus was quite impressed with the toned down version of the final draft of GPLv3. I think Linus, and other major developers should make their stand on this issue clear so that the kernel community can discuss the future steps. Yep, the GPLv3 probably will release around July time. So;luckily, we had very little time to see the final decision about it :-) I hope we should upgrade to GPLv3 and Sun should Dual License the OpenSolaris via GPLv3 (or at least,GPLv3 should be CDDL compatible.). So,we should have more fruits (like ZFS,DTrace etc.) ;-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi, As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too. So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and suggestions about this idea ? Regards, Tarkan Erimer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Hi, As we know the forthcoming GPL V3 will be not compatible with the GPL V2 and Linux Kernel is GPL V2 only. So, another point is, which is previously mentioned by Linus and others, that if it is decided to upgrade the Linux Kernel's License to GPL V3, it is needed the permission of all the maintainers permission who contributed to the Linux Kernel and there are a lot of lost or dead maintainers. Which makes it impossible to get all the maintainers' permission. But; if the Linux kernel should Dual-Licensed (GPL V2 and GPL V3), it will allow us the both worlds' fruits like code exchanging from other Open Source Projects (OpenSolaris etc.) that is compatible with GPL V3 and not with GPL V2 and of course the opposite is applicable,too. So;at this situation, what is possibility to make the Linux Kernel Dual-Licensed as I mentioned above and what is your opinions and suggestions about this idea ? Regards, Tarkan Erimer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
