RE: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: > > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to > > warn people > > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, > Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that > says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were added after that lawsuit. Yes. And pretty much everyone agrees that these warnings serve no purpose. Everyone knows that hot coffee is served hot. What people probably don't know is that if you spill hot coffee on yourself and remain in contact with the coffee for more than about 45 seconds, a third-degree burn can result. This warning doesn't convey that information. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone is going to alter their behavior in any significant way as a result of that warning. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed > > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an > > infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to > > list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will > > get a price for it and no guarantees of success). > > And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having Probably if -) I actually found something and -) the patent holder also believes in it (and he will - IMHO very probably - pay another expert to verify the findings) and -) the patent holder actually persues the infringements and -) the law suit goes that far and. > legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. At least in .at you need some kind of "official approval" to become an "expert in court" (in German: "Gutachter" - Is "assessor" the correct translation? http://dict.leo.org/ lists 9 different words). Actually this is a somewhat different job Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having Probably if -) I actually found something and -) the patent holder also believes in it (and he will - IMHO very probably - pay another expert to verify the findings) and -) the patent holder actually persues the infringements and -) the law suit goes that far and. legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. At least in .at you need some kind of official approval to become an expert in court (in German: Gutachter - Is assessor the correct translation? http://dict.leo.org/ lists 9 different words). Actually this is a somewhat different job Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were added after that lawsuit. Yes. And pretty much everyone agrees that these warnings serve no purpose. Everyone knows that hot coffee is served hot. What people probably don't know is that if you spill hot coffee on yourself and remain in contact with the coffee for more than about 45 seconds, a third-degree burn can result. This warning doesn't convey that information. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone is going to alter their behavior in any significant way as a result of that warning. DS - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were added after that lawsuit. pgpsyjbrl64U8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said: > > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the 100F == 37C 125F == 52C 55C == 131F 70C == 158F Yes, 100F *is* ludicrously low for coffee. :) pgpzvU9q5Otdl.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. > 165-190F is the > > preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For > > example: > > http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html > > http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm > > Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the > SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. The conversion was incorrect. 70C is about 160F, and 55C is about 130F. As I said in the correction, every number is correct in the unit it was first posted in, and all the claims are correct. 160F is the mininum recommended serving temperature and 165-190F is the preferred range. 130F is a ludicrously low serving temperature for coffee. 180F seems to be about ideal. Stella Liebeck's lawyers argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140F. This is no different from arguing that knives should be dull. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. > > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the > preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For > example: > http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html > http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. -- Brian Beattie Firmware Engineer APCON, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it > she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued > McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether or not McDonald's was in any way negligent or serving a defective or unreasonably dangerous product? This case should never have gotten past the earliest stages, and numerous factually similar cases were properly dismissed. There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it, and nobody can reasonably claim they didn't know coffee was served hot. People might not realize that coffee is hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but McDonald's can't include an education with each cup of coffee, and the plaintiff's never suggest what warning they think would have been appropriate. Any "failure to warn" type argument is absurd on its face. (Does anyone honestly think anything would change if McDonald's included some kind of notice on the cups?) There is similarly no way you can argue that the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature people want their coffee served, well within industry standards. Hot coffee is inherently dangerous, and asking McDonald's to make their coffee colder than industry standards just to make it less dangerous is to argue that stores should sell dull knives. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature consumers want it, within accepted standards, that makes any danger inherent in that temperature reasonable. There is no suggestion that the cups or lids are somehow unsuitable. Any "defective product" or "unreasonably dangerous" argument is absurd on its face. What type of legal claim does this leave? The claim that McDonald's settled "similar cases" and is thus being arbitrary or trying to hide anything is nonsense. McDonald's, and other coffee sellers, have settled cases where they *did* do something wrong, such as failing to properly close the lid or where an employee actually dropped or spilled the coffee on a customer. The Stella Liebeck case, however, is a textbook example of a jury finding for a plaintiff in a completely meritless case for no reason other than that the defendant had deep pockets and the plaintiff was badly hurt. That there is no plausible connection between anything the defendant did wrong and the plaintiff's injuries was totally ignored. That none of the plaintiff's claims had even one shred of legal merit was totally ignored. What really amazes me though is that people continue to try to find some way to justify this crazy case. That ATLA defends the case with a series of confusing "almost sort of true" statements is embarassing. DS PS: In my previous post I made a few temperature conversion errors between Farenheit and Celsius. All temperatures were correct in the first specified units and the errors didn't affect the reasoning. My apologies, and thanks to those who caught it. - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote: > Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have > this problem :-) > > [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption > and flame wars]. Yes, PLEEZE! --- ~Randy - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? We have a coffee chain down here (.au) called "92degrees". They claim this is the optimal temperature for pumping the water through the ground coffee beans to get ideal coffee. So it doesn't need to be boiling. Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. NeilBrown - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > >> > >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > >That's less than 90°C. > [1] > > >Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > >people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend > arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an > experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 > deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water > already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a > while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. For tea, you're not supposed to boil the water, only let it seethe, as far as I know. But yes, drinking scalding hot beverages is quite stupid. I'm not arguing against that. But not realising that something you need to at the very least seethe to prepare might be hot when served is showing total ignorance. > >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > > >No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > >ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they > >cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a > >refill of their cola. > > Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 Sounds quite reasonable. Things have gone too far when there are warnings about even the most obvious things. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: > > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an > understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... -- Dmitry - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Can we stop repeating a ridiculous myth? Coffee is supposed to be served hot, very hot, hot enough to cause third-degree burns in seconds. Yes, really. Don't spill coffee on yourself or you could wind up in the hospital with severe burns. This is a simple fact even if coffee is served at the ideal serving temperature. The fact that coffee is dangerous means that it is a virtual certainty that dozens of people will be seriously burned by coffee every year. If this scares or bothers you, don't drink coffee. >1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and Right, 175 is the generally-recommended serving temperature and will also produce third-degree burns almost immediately. Coffee served *anywhere* inside the generally-accepted serving range will cause third degree burns almost immediately. Consumer studies show that people generally like their coffee more the hotter you serve it, with 190-200 degrees (the practical maximum) consistently winning over lower temperature ranges. Car manufacturers make cars that don't just go "fast" but *dangerously* fast (100 to 120 MPH), a speed that can result in death almost immediately. >2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Right, coffee is dangerous. It has always been and always will be if it's served at the proper temperature. Thousands of people hurt themselves skiing every year, yet the resorts stay open. The danger of burns is inherent to the serving of hot beverages. If you don't want to take that risk, don't order hot beverages. How many people die each year in car accidents? Is this in any way evidence that the car manufacturers are doing anything wrong? >yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time >to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? This is a *perfect* example. The tort system is meant to correct wrongdoing. McDonald's served coffee at the temperature customers prefer it, in holders that were perfectly suitable for beverages served at that temperature. The justice system made them pay because someone was *hurt*, not because anyone did something *wrong*. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. > > >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > > > No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > > ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. > > So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. Don't drink and drive just got another application =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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/
OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: > > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an > understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 pgpZIqme0rRhn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
>
> That's less than 90�C. Water boils at 100�C. How the hell do
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic?
Ah, many thanks for converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius!
> > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an
understatement...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an > infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to > list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will > get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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/
[OT] Hot coffee (was: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers))
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 08:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > you're welcome to read the details here: > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Thanks for the pointer. "The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales." Although the punitive damages was later brought down to $480,000 (still extreme for the case) it wasn't just the law suit that caused the uproar. It was the $2.7 million that was (initially) rewarded. And for what? Spilling hot substance on your lap. I highly doubt that this would have been big news if the reward was just the $200,000. Since that's not really a life changing reward now a days. But there's too much "sue for the money" attitude in the US that the $2.7 mill got people upset. > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. I'll admit that I burnt myself while driving and drinking McD's coffee, but I never even thought about complaining about it. > > yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time > to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? OK, I like Ted's example of the lawnmower :) Well, the coffee one has gotten world news, and is just the "poster boy" for the frivolous lawsuits that are done in America. A while back I met a guy and he told me that he was working on his motorcycle, and disabled the breaks. Someone came by and stole the bike when he went in his house to get some tools. The thief crashed the bike (totaling it) and received some major injuries. Then the thief sued the guy because of the faulty breaks! He was in the middle of the case when I met him, so I don't know how it ended. But the fact that this wasn't laughed out of court just shows that the US system is screwed up. -- Steve - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > > No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total > ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. -- Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren. http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: >> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > >That's less than 90°C. [1] >Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do >people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. > >No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total >ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they >cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a >refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 -`J' --
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > > I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to > happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those > things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > > you're welcome to read the details here: > > > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and > > That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. -- Jens Axboe - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > > spill hot coffee in their lap ... > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and > you're welcome to read the details here: > > http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the > complexion of this story thoroughly: > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who > spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this "hot coffee in lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? rday - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: > The list of features which the driver supports is going to be > sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer > graphics hardware. Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent on the concept of using "XOR" in graphics operations (for dealing with a cursor that's moving around). There are plenty of patents involving optimizations that can't be proven unless you have access to the low-level source code or are willing to spend a huge amount of money disassembling megabytes of binaries. In fact, there are rumors floating around that pthe reason why no one is willing to release source code is that both sides are almost certainly violating each other's trivial patents, and defending against a patent lawsuit can take years, millions of dollars, and even if the patent is completely and totally bogus, can put a company out of business. Witness what happened with Research in Motion and the patents allegedly covering the Blackberry. Even though the USPTO had already provisionally ruled that there was prior art (the patent troll still had appeals to file), the judge wasn't willing to wait for the USPTO process to finish, and was prepared to issue a ruling that would put a 23 BILLION dollar company out of business. So RIMM ended up paying over half a billion dollars of blackmail money to settle a patent lawsuit where the patents may end up getting ruled completely bogus a year or two from now anyway. In any case, the rumor that was going around was that the reasn why neither side is willing to release sources is because whoever did would be committing potential corporate suicide first I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice" system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap and my favorite, to an idiot who lifted up a lawnmover to trim their hedges, dropped the lawnmover on his foot and lost his foot as a result. The lawn mover company had to pay $$$ because they hadn't thought to put in a idiot switch to stop the lawnmower blade from spinning when it was lifted off the ground - Ted P.S. The opinions expressed in this e-mail are completely my own; I'm not important enough to decide the corporate position of my employer. :-) - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: > On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in > > practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you > > have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump > > of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to > > a so-called "agreement" on the costs. > > On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. > > Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by > > people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in > > search of offenders. > > The list of features which the driver supports is going to be > sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer > graphics hardware. > > Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a > patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a > disassembler jockey. Most of the cases (more or less "almost all" AFAIK) are handled/closed without really going to court (since it is cheaper for all - especially if the alleged patent violator is substantially smaller than the patent holder and will not survive the law suit. See it as "protection money"). So there are no real statistics available on this issue. I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). Thus the patent holder takes the whole risk that I don't find anything useful (independent of the presence of a patent violation or my inability to find/identify it). And you need people wo are literate in "patent quak" and the technical side so it will IMHP not work if you get someone not very expensive[0]. > So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether > you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. > It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a > patent lawsuit. Given the above, the difference (measured in money/effort/) is in IMHO much larger than 1%. > Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable > reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that > the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they > don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer > them? I don't know. For network cards it helped to recommend hardware with open drivers. In the graphic card department this didn't worked up to now. Bernd [0]: That doesn't imply that hiring someone expensive guarantees success. -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called "agreement" on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of > hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about > software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which > violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release > binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, > false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your > source code then you're practising the invention without a license in > binaries compiled from that source code. Period. You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: [...] > I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of > hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about > software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which > violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release > binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, > false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your > source code then you're practising the invention without a license in > binaries compiled from that source code. Period. While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called "agreement" on the costs. > Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: > it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the > benefit. Which also may well be true. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: [...] I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Which also may well be true. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. Most of the cases (more or less almost all AFAIK) are handled/closed without really going to court (since it is cheaper for all - especially if the alleged patent violator is substantially smaller than the patent holder and will not survive the law suit. See it as protection money). So there are no real statistics available on this issue. I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). Thus the patent holder takes the whole risk that I don't find anything useful (independent of the presence of a patent violation or my inability to find/identify it). And you need people wo are literate in patent quak and the technical side so it will IMHP not work if you get someone not very expensive[0]. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Given the above, the difference (measured in money/effort/) is in IMHO much larger than 1%. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? I don't know. For network cards it helped to recommend hardware with open drivers. In the graphic card department this didn't worked up to now. Bernd [0]: That doesn't imply that hiring someone expensive guarantees success. -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote: The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent on the concept of using XOR in graphics operations (for dealing with a cursor that's moving around). There are plenty of patents involving optimizations that can't be proven unless you have access to the low-level source code or are willing to spend a huge amount of money disassembling megabytes of binaries. In fact, there are rumors floating around that pthe reason why no one is willing to release source code is that both sides are almost certainly violating each other's trivial patents, and defending against a patent lawsuit can take years, millions of dollars, and even if the patent is completely and totally bogus, can put a company out of business. Witness what happened with Research in Motion and the patents allegedly covering the Blackberry. Even though the USPTO had already provisionally ruled that there was prior art (the patent troll still had appeals to file), the judge wasn't willing to wait for the USPTO process to finish, and was prepared to issue a ruling that would put a 23 BILLION dollar company out of business. So RIMM ended up paying over half a billion dollars of blackmail money to settle a patent lawsuit where the patents may end up getting ruled completely bogus a year or two from now anyway. In any case, the rumor that was going around was that the reasn why neither side is willing to release sources is because whoever did would be committing potential corporate suicide first I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap and my favorite, to an idiot who lifted up a lawnmover to trim their hedges, dropped the lawnmover on his foot and lost his foot as a result. The lawn mover company had to pay $$$ because they hadn't thought to put in a idiot switch to stop the lawnmower blade from spinning when it was lifted off the ground - Ted P.S. The opinions expressed in this e-mail are completely my own; I'm not important enough to decide the corporate position of my employer. :-) - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? rday - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. [snip] Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. -- Jens Axboe - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those things! Talk about corporate irresponsibility. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. [1] Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 -`J' --
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. -- Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren. http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html - 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/
[OT] Hot coffee (was: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers))
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 08:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm Thanks for the pointer. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales. Although the punitive damages was later brought down to $480,000 (still extreme for the case) it wasn't just the law suit that caused the uproar. It was the $2.7 million that was (initially) rewarded. And for what? Spilling hot substance on your lap. I highly doubt that this would have been big news if the reward was just the $200,000. Since that's not really a life changing reward now a days. But there's too much sue for the money attitude in the US that the $2.7 mill got people upset. as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. I'll admit that I burnt myself while driving and drinking McD's coffee, but I never even thought about complaining about it. yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? OK, I like Ted's example of the lawnmower :) Well, the coffee one has gotten world news, and is just the poster boy for the frivolous lawsuits that are done in America. A while back I met a guy and he told me that he was working on his motorcycle, and disabled the breaks. Someone came by and stole the bike when he went in his house to get some tools. The thief crashed the bike (totaling it) and received some major injuries. Then the thief sued the guy because of the faulty breaks! He was in the middle of the case when I met him, so I don't know how it ended. But the fact that this wasn't laughed out of court just shows that the US system is screwed up. -- Steve - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will get a price for it and no guarantees of success). And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
That's less than 90�C. Water boils at 100�C. How the hell do
people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic?
Ah, many thanks for converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius!
2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an
understatement...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say programmer or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 pgpZIqme0rRhn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote: David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down. Don't drink and drive just got another application =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Can we stop repeating a ridiculous myth? Coffee is supposed to be served hot, very hot, hot enough to cause third-degree burns in seconds. Yes, really. Don't spill coffee on yourself or you could wind up in the hospital with severe burns. This is a simple fact even if coffee is served at the ideal serving temperature. The fact that coffee is dangerous means that it is a virtual certainty that dozens of people will be seriously burned by coffee every year. If this scares or bothers you, don't drink coffee. 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and Right, 175 is the generally-recommended serving temperature and will also produce third-degree burns almost immediately. Coffee served *anywhere* inside the generally-accepted serving range will cause third degree burns almost immediately. Consumer studies show that people generally like their coffee more the hotter you serve it, with 190-200 degrees (the practical maximum) consistently winning over lower temperature ranges. Car manufacturers make cars that don't just go fast but *dangerously* fast (100 to 120 MPH), a speed that can result in death almost immediately. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Right, coffee is dangerous. It has always been and always will be if it's served at the proper temperature. Thousands of people hurt themselves skiing every year, yet the resorts stay open. The danger of burns is inherent to the serving of hot beverages. If you don't want to take that risk, don't order hot beverages. How many people die each year in car accidents? Is this in any way evidence that the car manufacturers are doing anything wrong? yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged. but it's time to find another example to use as the evidence, ok? This is a *perfect* example. The tort system is meant to correct wrongdoing. McDonald's served coffee at the temperature customers prefer it, in holders that were perfectly suitable for beverages served at that temperature. The justice system made them pay because someone was *hurt*, not because anyone did something *wrong*. http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html DS - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said: 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an understatement... And keep in mind, that's not 700 burns. That's 700 complaints that went far enough that the lawyers were able to find documentation in McDonald's records. The people who got burned and didn't complain, or just went in and gave the manager an earful, aren't counted in that 700 How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... -- Dmitry - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. [1] Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40 deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable. For tea, you're not supposed to boil the water, only let it seethe, as far as I know. But yes, drinking scalding hot beverages is quite stupid. I'm not arguing against that. But not realising that something you need to at the very least seethe to prepare might be hot when served is showing total ignorance. 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it. No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh. If they cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill of their cola. Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753 Sounds quite reasonable. Things have gone too far when there are warnings about even the most obvious things. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee in their lap ... MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC: can we please stop using this hot coffee in lap story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system? i'm guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and you're welcome to read the details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm as you can see, there are two salient points that change the complexion of this story thoroughly: 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and That's less than 90°C. Water boils at 100°C. How the hell do people expect coffee to be made without boiling water? Magic? We have a coffee chain down here (.au) called 92degrees. They claim this is the optimal temperature for pumping the water through the ground coffee beans to get ideal coffee. So it doesn't need to be boiling. Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. NeilBrown - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote: Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have this problem :-) [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption and flame wars]. Yes, PLEEZE! --- ~Randy - 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: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued McDonalds for that people would be more understainding... How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether or not McDonald's was in any way negligent or serving a defective or unreasonably dangerous product? This case should never have gotten past the earliest stages, and numerous factually similar cases were properly dismissed. There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, and nobody can reasonably claim they didn't know coffee was served hot. People might not realize that coffee is hot enough to cause third-degree burns, but McDonald's can't include an education with each cup of coffee, and the plaintiff's never suggest what warning they think would have been appropriate. Any failure to warn type argument is absurd on its face. (Does anyone honestly think anything would change if McDonald's included some kind of notice on the cups?) There is similarly no way you can argue that the product is unreasonably dangerous or defective. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature people want their coffee served, well within industry standards. Hot coffee is inherently dangerous, and asking McDonald's to make their coffee colder than industry standards just to make it less dangerous is to argue that stores should sell dull knives. McDonald's serves coffee at the temperature consumers want it, within accepted standards, that makes any danger inherent in that temperature reasonable. There is no suggestion that the cups or lids are somehow unsuitable. Any defective product or unreasonably dangerous argument is absurd on its face. What type of legal claim does this leave? The claim that McDonald's settled similar cases and is thus being arbitrary or trying to hide anything is nonsense. McDonald's, and other coffee sellers, have settled cases where they *did* do something wrong, such as failing to properly close the lid or where an employee actually dropped or spilled the coffee on a customer. The Stella Liebeck case, however, is a textbook example of a jury finding for a plaintiff in a completely meritless case for no reason other than that the defendant had deep pockets and the plaintiff was badly hurt. That there is no plausible connection between anything the defendant did wrong and the plaintiff's injuries was totally ignored. That none of the plaintiff's claims had even one shred of legal merit was totally ignored. What really amazes me though is that people continue to try to find some way to justify this crazy case. That ATLA defends the case with a series of confusing almost sort of true statements is embarassing. DS PS: In my previous post I made a few temperature conversion errors between Farenheit and Celsius. All temperatures were correct in the first specified units and the errors didn't affect the reasoning. My apologies, and thanks to those who caught it. - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. -- Brian Beattie Firmware Engineer APCON, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For example: http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F. The conversion was incorrect. 70C is about 160F, and 55C is about 130F. As I said in the correction, every number is correct in the unit it was first posted in, and all the claims are correct. 160F is the mininum recommended serving temperature and 165-190F is the preferred range. 130F is a ludicrously low serving temperature for coffee. 180F seems to be about ideal. Stella Liebeck's lawyers argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140F. This is no different from arguing that knives should be dull. DS - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said: The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below. Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee. 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the 100F == 37C 125F == 52C 55C == 131F 70C == 158F Yes, 100F *is* ludicrously low for coffee. :) pgpzvU9q5Otdl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT Coffee (was Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said: There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people about the risks. The cup says hot on it, Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were added after that lawsuit. pgpsyjbrl64U8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or "obviousness" grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: > > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > > translate.. > > > > Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we > > don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. > > There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code > without getting sued... > > The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even > totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, > that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of > code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those > vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or > "obviousness" grounds. You know, not releasing source code doesn't make "IP" violations magically disappear, so if anything you should be more suspicious about closed source drivers infringing others patents than anything. > So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP > issues? If you have to worry about "IP", you're screwed no matter if you release source or not. The only problem is that it might be trickier for the other party to prove. The only case where a closed source driver makes some kind of sense from an "IP" point of view is when you're trying to protect your own code (or code you have licensed). > Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*. > I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy > a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. Well, you can always make a contribution by using public transportation or switching to low energy light bulbs. Every little thing counts =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > translate.. > > Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we > don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or "obviousness" grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. pgpDu8p39IVdm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said: > That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried > about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on > with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would > work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents > on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone > else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where > software patents are generally not valid. > > The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything > that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or > licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be > worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :) pgptJoVEQwSXZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Binary Drivers
Hi! > >You're not alone, I think everybody who knows, how > >things in a > >computer work shares this view. > --- > > Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that > the board (and > its hardware interfaces that the documentation would > describe) involve > IP licensed from a third party, which the board > manufacturer does not > have a legal right to disclose, or (b) that there is, in > fact, no > suitable documentation, because the boards are developed > somewhat > fluidly and the driver is developed directly from > low-level knowledge > that simply isn't written down in a form suitable for > passing on. So just opensource the driver. It is usually easy to port it, and possible to clean it up. I have once ported cd-rom driver from DOS to linux (do you still remember cdroms not talking ATA?) -- in 2days or so, and the comments in driver were in korean. Pavel -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. - 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: Binary Drivers
Hi! You're not alone, I think everybody who knows, how things in a computer work shares this view. --- Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that the board (and its hardware interfaces that the documentation would describe) involve IP licensed from a third party, which the board manufacturer does not have a legal right to disclose, or (b) that there is, in fact, no suitable documentation, because the boards are developed somewhat fluidly and the driver is developed directly from low-level knowledge that simply isn't written down in a form suitable for passing on. So just opensource the driver. It is usually easy to port it, and possible to clean it up. I have once ported cd-rom driver from DOS to linux (do you still remember cdroms not talking ATA?) -- in 2days or so, and the comments in driver were in korean. Pavel -- Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins. - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said: That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :) pgptJoVEQwSXZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? Remember - somebody *can* get it but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. pgpDu8p39IVdm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said: Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code without getting sued... The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. You know, not releasing source code doesn't make IP violations magically disappear, so if anything you should be more suspicious about closed source drivers infringing others patents than anything. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? If you have to worry about IP, you're screwed no matter if you release source or not. The only problem is that it might be trickier for the other party to prove. The only case where a closed source driver makes some kind of sense from an IP point of view is when you're trying to protect your own code (or code you have licensed). Remember - somebody *can* get it but be unable to actually *deploy*. I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so. Well, you can always make a contribution by using public transportation or switching to low energy light bulbs. Every little thing counts =) Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/ Full colour fire (/ - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to > translate.. That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Alan - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > > they licensed from other companies What makes you think they "get it"? In a recent interview (http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/bsdtalk054-interview-with-andy-ritger.html) the nvidia developer had this to say: "Quite honestly we have a lot of ip sorrounding both our hardware and our software. And so the driver we provide is binary only, ya know, to protect that intellectual property. You know, I guess, on a software side, so much of what we do, err, of the code that comprises that drivers is common and leveraged across all the operating systems and I think that is a big benefit. You know we are able to accomplish a lot with a fairly small, err, unix specific engineering team because we're able to leverage so much common code. Ya know, that really is a big win for us and our users, and so, ya know, we provide a binary only driver to protect that ip. Umm, that said, we do try to, ya know, provide source for, err, ya know, for things when it makes sense and its possible to do so. I guess for our various unix graphics drivers, the interface between *cough* excuse me, the core of the binary, err the core of the kernel module is operating system neutral .. is shipped binary only but anything that, ya know, interacts directly with, with unix kernel, be it linux or freebsd or whatever, we provide the source code to that interface layer. Similarly, err, I guess, up in user space, umm, you know, we were talking either about, umm, the nvida X extension and our control panel nvidia-settings. The source code for that is provided as GPL. We provide a command line tool nvidia-xconfig for manipulating your xconfiguration files. We provide that as GPL. So we do try to provide source code to those sorts of utilities and things like that when it makes sense. Umm, but the core of our driver, we only provide as binary." Yeah, really sounds like he "gets it". Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it. That wasn't some marketting stooge they were interviewing either, it was two of the guys who work on the unix porting team for the nvidia drivers. They don't get it. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that > > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that > > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no > > hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big > > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, > > or no? > > Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Of course. But it is much better for the patent-interested parties if it wouldn't be necessary (and said parties are actually complaining about the "must publish" thing). And the times are long gone when a patent was actually "publishing". They use since ages there own secret language so - the patent system as such doen not enforce "publisching" (except you are one of speakers of "patent quak"). - that even the most trivial idea looks like it is very complicated. - that even an already implemented idean looks like it is very new. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no hard references for actual patent numbers). And then they have the big problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance, or no? Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention? Of course. But it is much better for the patent-interested parties if it wouldn't be necessary (and said parties are actually complaining about the must publish thing). And the times are long gone when a patent was actually publishing. They use since ages there own secret language so - the patent system as such doen not enforce publisching (except you are one of speakers of patent quak). - that even the most trivial idea looks like it is very complicated. - that even an already implemented idean looks like it is very new. Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that they licensed from other companies What makes you think they get it? In a recent interview (http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/bsdtalk054-interview-with-andy-ritger.html) the nvidia developer had this to say: Quite honestly we have a lot of ip sorrounding both our hardware and our software. And so the driver we provide is binary only, ya know, to protect that intellectual property. You know, I guess, on a software side, so much of what we do, err, of the code that comprises that drivers is common and leveraged across all the operating systems and I think that is a big benefit. You know we are able to accomplish a lot with a fairly small, err, unix specific engineering team because we're able to leverage so much common code. Ya know, that really is a big win for us and our users, and so, ya know, we provide a binary only driver to protect that ip. Umm, that said, we do try to, ya know, provide source for, err, ya know, for things when it makes sense and its possible to do so. I guess for our various unix graphics drivers, the interface between *cough* excuse me, the core of the binary, err the core of the kernel module is operating system neutral .. is shipped binary only but anything that, ya know, interacts directly with, with unix kernel, be it linux or freebsd or whatever, we provide the source code to that interface layer. Similarly, err, I guess, up in user space, umm, you know, we were talking either about, umm, the nvida X extension and our control panel nvidia-settings. The source code for that is provided as GPL. We provide a command line tool nvidia-xconfig for manipulating your xconfiguration files. We provide that as GPL. So we do try to provide source code to those sorts of utilities and things like that when it makes sense. Umm, but the core of our driver, we only provide as binary. Yeah, really sounds like he gets it. Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we don't get it and we don't want you to have it. That wasn't some marketting stooge they were interviewing either, it was two of the guys who work on the unix porting team for the nvidia drivers. They don't get it. Trent - 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: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property. Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to translate.. That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where software patents are generally not valid. The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Alan - 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: Binary Drivers
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative work of another in *functional* detail. in fact, to get a Patent you are required to explain the invention in sufficant detail for somone 'normally skilled' in the field to be able to duplicate it. the Patent protection is a reward for _not_ keeping thing secret and publicising the details. at least in that's how it's supposed to work. David Lang - 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: Binary Drivers
> Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by > patents or something similar that would prevent you from > publishing results > adn/or drivers (open source). As I understand the issues, you have the right to reverse engineer hardware except where the DMCA applies. I don't see any way a patent or similar could prevent you from publishing results. Again, the DMCA might. > Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal > analyser, > disassembly of windows driver, etc. There are a few things that might be able to impose such a restriction on you. If none of these apply, I think you should be okay: Any EULA, shrink-wrap, or click-through type agreement that might apply to the software (whether the driver, OS, analyzer, or whatever). Also, any actual agreement you entered into. Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative work of another in *functional* detail. IANAL, and I might have missed something. IMO, the DMCA or a driver EULA are the only things you really need to worry about. It's hard to see how the DMCA would apply if we're not talking about some kind of content protection scheme. DS - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/28/06, Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results adn/or drivers (open source). This is a pretty good resource: http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi Yes, there are probably patents covering this hardware stuff.. and that's why we have all those open source companies that have given their patents to an entity that promises to sue in retalitation if they try to use their patents against open source. So let's not worry about patents ok? They'd be screwed more than us if they try to use them. Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser, disassembly of windows driver, etc. Not as far as I am aware. Obviously if you were to disassemble a windows driver, add a wrapper and reassemble, that would be copying.. but if you are trying to figure out how something works by reverse engineering a windows driver then that's ok. At least it is where I live (Australia) because we have laws that allow us to ignore license restrictions that say "thou shalt not reverse engineer" for most interesting purposes. Maybe you have similar laws where you live. Maybe not. Hope that helps, Trent - 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: Binary Drivers
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results adn/or drivers (open source). Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser, disassembly of windows driver, etc. Rok Markovic - 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: Binary Drivers
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results adn/or drivers (open source). Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser, disassembly of windows driver, etc. Rok Markovic - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/28/06, Rok Markovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results adn/or drivers (open source). This is a pretty good resource: http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi Yes, there are probably patents covering this hardware stuff.. and that's why we have all those open source companies that have given their patents to an entity that promises to sue in retalitation if they try to use their patents against open source. So let's not worry about patents ok? They'd be screwed more than us if they try to use them. Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser, disassembly of windows driver, etc. Not as far as I am aware. Obviously if you were to disassemble a windows driver, add a wrapper and reassemble, that would be copying.. but if you are trying to figure out how something works by reverse engineering a windows driver then that's ok. At least it is where I live (Australia) because we have laws that allow us to ignore license restrictions that say thou shalt not reverse engineer for most interesting purposes. Maybe you have similar laws where you live. Maybe not. Hope that helps, Trent - 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: Binary Drivers
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results adn/or drivers (open source). As I understand the issues, you have the right to reverse engineer hardware except where the DMCA applies. I don't see any way a patent or similar could prevent you from publishing results. Again, the DMCA might. Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser, disassembly of windows driver, etc. There are a few things that might be able to impose such a restriction on you. If none of these apply, I think you should be okay: Any EULA, shrink-wrap, or click-through type agreement that might apply to the software (whether the driver, OS, analyzer, or whatever). Also, any actual agreement you entered into. Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative work of another in *functional* detail. IANAL, and I might have missed something. IMO, the DMCA or a driver EULA are the only things you really need to worry about. It's hard to see how the DMCA would apply if we're not talking about some kind of content protection scheme. DS - 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: Binary Drivers
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative work of another in *functional* detail. in fact, to get a Patent you are required to explain the invention in sufficant detail for somone 'normally skilled' in the field to be able to duplicate it. the Patent protection is a reward for _not_ keeping thing secret and publicising the details. at least in that's how it's supposed to work. David Lang - 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: Binary Drivers
Horst H. von Brand wrote: David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] . The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item sold, except those specific laws allows the manufacturer to retain. This is complete nonsense. The car manufacturer can very well agree with you to sell you the right to only drive the car on weekdays, and rent it off on weekends. Nothing forces them to sell "all rights they have on the car". You failed to notice the "free and clear" part of David's post. -n - 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: Binary Drivers
Horst H. von Brand wrote: David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..] . The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item sold, except those specific laws allows the manufacturer to retain. This is complete nonsense. The car manufacturer can very well agree with you to sell you the right to only drive the car on weekdays, and rent it off on weekends. Nothing forces them to sell all rights they have on the car. You failed to notice the free and clear part of David's post. -n - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You buy a phone for $200. The manufacturer only represents that it works with CarrierCo. ... You have the right to do what you like with the phone, of course. It's a great doorstop and a reasonable paper weight. The manufacturer didn't promise the phone's configuration wouldn't become obsolete or that you would be able to change the configuration. Lack of documentation is not an imposition on your rights, and you had no specific promise of documentation from the seller. I have to say, it honestly astonishes me that would people would make arguments like these. Are we so used to these kinds of one-sided arrangements that we've lost our common sense? --- If the manufacturer knew about the forthcoming configuration change, you might have a fraud claim. Otherwise it's just bad luck, which happens sometimes. I'm not familiar with any situations where the manufacturer locks the phone. Locks are usually applied by the carrier in return for a subsidy. Once any contract restrictions are over, you would have the right to attempt to unlock the phone or to find someone who could do so. For most phones in the market today, I understand that to be a relatively easy thing to find. In the US, the Copyright office recently ruled that there should be an exception to the DMCA so that circumventing the lock would not be a DMCA violation. I don't know why you think of this as a particularly unfair situation. There's at least a chance that the phone might be reconfigurable. The phone might as easily have been physically unable to work with the new configuration. If you bought, for instance, an Iridium phone (which worked only on the Iridium satellite network and had no other useful function), it became a paperweight when the network ceased operation. You could sell the device on ebay or attempt to salvage parts of it for other purposes, but otherwise you're just out of luck. scott - 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: Binary Drivers
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] . > The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should > have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and > clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item > sold, except those specific laws allows the manufacturer to retain. This is complete nonsense. The car manufacturer can very well agree with you to sell you the right to only drive the car on weekdays, and rent it off on weekends. Nothing forces them to sell "all rights they have on the car". [...] > I simply do not accept the argument that it is lawful for a manufacturer to > sell a physical object in a normal free and clear sale and then refuse to > disclose the knowledge necessary to use it. Ask a lawyer about this, don't impose your wacky legal theories on us. > (And by that I mean necessary to > use it any reasonable way, not just the way the manufacturer intended it to > be used.) Define "reasonable way". The manufacturer could very well define it as "use the XYZ graphics card on Windows XP service pack 2", as it was designed specifically for that environment. Everything else (use on Linux, for example) is then "unreasonable use", and need not be supported at all. > This same issue has been pressed in other areas Examples? > and I think it's time it be > pressed with graphics cards. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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: Binary Drivers
James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Let's summarize the current situation: > 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products, > as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver). No. They have absolutely no obligation to tell you anything. If they sell you a card with a binary driver that /only/ works with, say, Minix, it is up to you to buy it or not. > 2) Hardware vendors don't want to tell us how to program their products, > because they think this information is their secret sauce (or maybe > their competitor's secret sauce). And lots of other reasons, including that with detailed specs you might be able to continue using the same card for 3 or 5 years, when they'd love to sell you a replacement next year... Creating, vetting and maintaining specs is /hard/ work, and costs money. If it won't bring a measurable increase in income, why do it? > 3) Hardware vendors don't tell us how to program their products, because > they know about (1) and they believe (2). The law says (1), and they know (2) for a fact. > 4) We need products with datasheets because of our development model. Yep. > 5) We want products with capabilities that these vendors advertise. Yep. > 6) Products that satisfy both (4) and (5) are often scarce or > non-existent. Just too bad. > So far, the suggestions I've seen to resolve the above conflict fall > into three categories: > a) Force vendors to provide datasheets. How? > b) Entice vendors to provide datasheets. How? > c) Reverse engineer the hardware and write our own datasheets. Not always legal... > Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of > analogy and allegory. These are big companies, who deal in hard realities and cold cash. Poetry won't get you anywhere. > Alternatively, one can try to change the law > through government channels. Won't happen before open source is so prevalent that the point has long become moot. > Solution (b) requires market pressure, Will happen once open source has a large enough slice of a lucrative pie. I.e., it is happening today with "server class" machines. >charity, A company is bound /by law/ to make as much profit as possible. Whoever wants to go this route might spend some time as a neighbor to the Enron et al folks. > or visionary management. This cuts both ways... visionary management made small companies big, and huge companies dissappear from the face of the earth. > We can't exert enough market pressure currently to make much difference. OK. > Charity sometimes gives us datasheets for old hardware. OK. > Visionary > management is the future. Don't they tell that all aspiring MBAs... > Solution (c) is what we do now, with varying degrees of success. A good > example is the R300 support in the radeon DRM module. And others. And this is not the only avenue persued, not by far. Some developers are chummy with the engineers behind the devices they support, and get some help that way. There are people who convinced their companies to let them work on Linux drivers on their own time (with access to the people in the know and datasheets, one would presume), others have gone so far as to be able to work part-time on Linux drivers. Some companies have hired developers under NDA to develop drivers, others have given out datasheets (and access to sample hardware) under NDA (or just "don't give this out too freely") to interested developers. Then there are others (IBM comes to mind) where the company itself is officially developing drivers for their hardware. Sure, most of the more backstage deals you won't ever hear about, and for some of the other cases you might have absolutely no interest. Fact is, Linux has /by far/ the best hardware support of all operating systems out there. You only notice the (small) minority of devices that don't work (yet). Sure, it is mostly in the latest glitter where support is currently lacking, and this distorts the perspective quite a bit. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de InformaticaFono: +56 32 2654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 2654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 2797513 - 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: Binary Drivers
> Again, while some of the car/house analogies may describe situations > where the seller has not conveyed all the rights, the video card > situation is completely different. You have the right to do what you > like with it and the seller retains no rights. Lack of documentation > is not an imposition on your rights, unless you had a specific promise > of documentation from the seller. I'm curious if you really believe this. So let me set up one last hypothetical. You buy a phone for $200. The manufacturer only represents that it works with CarrierCo. (You do not buy the phone form CarrierCo.) Two months later, CarrierCo stops supporting your phone's configuration. You need to make a configuration change to the phone to get it to work on CarrierCo's "newly upgraded" network. You go to change the phone's configuration and you discover it requires a code. You call the manufacturer of the phone and say "hey, it's my phone, give me my lock out code". The manufacturer says, "sure, for $450". You have the right to do what you like with the phone, of course. It's a great doorstop and a reasonable paper weight. The manufacturer didn't promise the phone's configuration wouldn't become obsolete or that you would be able to change the configuration. Lack of documentation is not an imposition on your rights, and you had no specific promise of documentation from the seller. I have to say, it honestly astonishes me that would people would make arguments like these. Are we so used to these kinds of one-sided arrangements that we've lost our common sense? DS - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's really common sense. Imagine if you buy the right to use my car, but I don't give you the key. Can I say, "yes, you have the right to use my car, you bought that, but that doesn't mean I have to tell you how to use my car." --- I have to agree with Martin, that the car analogies really bear little relationship with the question of closed-source drivers... My point was that you buy what you buy, under the terms that you agree to. For a house, or a car, the "normal" terms would include any associated accessories, including keys. Keys also have a certain common-law "specialness", because they historically corresponded to the right to access. If you were buying a house or car and the seller was retaining keys (perhaps because they have some historical or personal significance), that would have to be disclosed and it would have to be clear that no rights were associated with the retained keys. --- ... Skipping the rest of the house/car analogies... When you buy a video car, you are *not* buying the right to use that video card with Windows. You are buying all the rights to the video card, to use it any way you please. The manufacturer has no right (because it sold that right when it sold the video card) to interfere or obstruct your right to use it as you please. --- There is a notion of "fitness for purpose" that sometimes applies - if the seller describes the object as fit for a particular purpose, then the seller has an obligation to make sure the object is, in fact, fit for that purpose. However, that's a very limited requirement - it's not required to be fit for any other purpose and being fit for that purpose would not require documentation unless that purpose normally required it. Note that selling a card as suitable for use with Windows would not suggest, in any way, that it was offered as suitable for use with Linux. Again, you buy the right to do anything you like with the object, but the seller has no obligation beyond the agreed terms. --- If you retain some rights over something, then you are not selling it in the normal sense. You are selling a subset of the rights to it, and the buy must be told what rights he is getting and what rights he is not getting. --- Again, while some of the car/house analogies may describe situations where the seller has not conveyed all the rights, the video card situation is completely different. You have the right to do what you like with it and the seller retains no rights. Lack of documentation is not an imposition on your rights, unless you had a specific promise of documentation from the seller. scott - 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: Binary Drivers
Combined responses: > > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must > > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. > > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. > > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as > > that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't > > buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. > just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has > any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter > nonsense (sorry). That's why I said "insofar as that right was owned by the car manufacturer". The example of emission control measures wasn't mine. I'm responding to a silly hypothetical. > So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any > more. They were never intended to be funny. They only become stupid when people deliberately pointed out the cases where the examples differ from the case we're realling interested in. I agree that examples involving cases where there are specific laws (such as emissions control) are silly. The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item sold, except those specific laws allows the manufacturer to retain. All the issues about whether the manufacturer has the right to break the law or whether the manufacturer has to help you break the law are not in any way relevant to the hardware issue we were discussion. Someone brought them up just to sidetrack the analogies. That's a very good way to make an analogy seem irrelevent, but it's cheating. So long as you stick to the issues that relate, the analogy is nearly perfect. See, for examlek, James C. Georgas post. -- >Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of >analogy and allegory. Alternatively, one can try to change the law >through government channels. One doesn't need to change the law, just enforce it. I simply do not accept the argument that it is lawful for a manufacturer to sell a physical object in a normal free and clear sale and then refuse to disclose the knowledge necessary to use it. (And by that I mean necessary to use it any reasonable way, not just the way the manufacturer intended it to be used.) This same issue has been pressed in other areas and I think it's time it be pressed with graphics cards. DS - 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: Binary Drivers
--- Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They > are > > just that - utter nonsense. > > > > And now lets stop the car nonsense :-) > > I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes > I've heard from mechanics about how impossible it is to service new > model Fords these days. A behaviour that is not very different from gthe GMs, BMWs, daimler-Chryslers, Toyota, "you name them" of this world. I never said I liked the attitude. > Without the engine management systems > diagnostics devices they can't do anything. Ford controls who gets > these devices and demands a cut of every service, essentially setting > the price. Service centers that don't play ball don't get the > devices or get the devices taken away from them if they question > Ford's pricing policies. Of course, this should be illegal, and our > governments should be enforcing antitrust laws, but Ford is a big > company and has lots of lawyers.. > Actually we have/had a similar situation here in Germany. We are used to having "licensed dealerships" which are only allowed to sell one car brand. This might be illegal by EU laws now. > Repco and other after market manufacturers can't easily make a clone > of these devices like they do every other part, because reverse > engineering software is not really as advanced as reverse engineering > spare parts.. or maybe software reverse engineering is just so much > more expensive than automotive reverse engineering that it is not > cost effective to clone these devices.. or maybe they're just afraid > of the lawyers too. > Understanding software is more difficult, because you also have to understand the working prinziple of the underlying hardware, which you often have no specs for either. So you have to reverse engineer both layers. Cheers Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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: Binary Drivers
--- James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote: > > On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must > > > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. > > > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. > > > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as > > > that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't > > > buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. > > > > just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer > has > > any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter > > nonsense (sorry). > > > > So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny > any > > more. > > Let's summarize the current situation: > > 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their > products, as long as they provide some way to use it > (i.e. binary blob driver). > Correct, as far as I can tell. > 2) Hardware vendors don't want to tell us how to program their > products, because they think this information is their secret > sauce (or maybe their competitor's secret sauce). > - or they are ashamed to show the world what kind of crap they sell - or they have lost (never had) the documentation themselves. I tend to no believe this > 3) Hardware vendors don't tell us how to program their products, > because they know about (1) and they believe (2). > - or they are just ignorant > 4) We need products with datasheets because of our development model. > - correct > 5) We want products with capabilities that these vendors advertise. > we want open-spec products that meet the performance of the high-end closed-spec products > 6) Products that satisfy both (4) and (5) are often scarce or > non-existent. > unfortunatelly > > So far, the suggestions I've seen to resolve the above conflict fall > into three categories: > > a) Force vendors to provide datasheets. > > b) Entice vendors to provide datasheets. > > c) Reverse engineer the hardware and write our own datasheets. > > Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of > analogy and allegory. Alternatively, one can try to change the law > through government channels. > good luck > Solution (b) requires market pressure, charity, or visionary > management. > We can't exert enough market pressure currently to make much > difference. > Charity sometimes gives us datasheets for old hardware. Visionary > management is the future. > - Old hardware is not interesting in most markets - Visionary mamangement is rare > Solution (c) is what we do now, with varying degrees of success. A > good example is the R300 support in the radeon DRM module. > But the R300 does not meet 5) Cheers Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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: Binary Drivers
On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote: > On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must > > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. > > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. > > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as > > that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't > > buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. > > just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has > any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter > nonsense (sorry). > > So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any > more. Let's summarize the current situation: 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products, as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver). 2) Hardware vendors don't want to tell us how to program their products, because they think this information is their secret sauce (or maybe their competitor's secret sauce). 3) Hardware vendors don't tell us how to program their products, because they know about (1) and they believe (2). 4) We need products with datasheets because of our development model. 5) We want products with capabilities that these vendors advertise. 6) Products that satisfy both (4) and (5) are often scarce or non-existent. So far, the suggestions I've seen to resolve the above conflict fall into three categories: a) Force vendors to provide datasheets. b) Entice vendors to provide datasheets. c) Reverse engineer the hardware and write our own datasheets. Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of analogy and allegory. Alternatively, one can try to change the law through government channels. Solution (b) requires market pressure, charity, or visionary management. We can't exert enough market pressure currently to make much difference. Charity sometimes gives us datasheets for old hardware. Visionary management is the future. Solution (c) is what we do now, with varying degrees of success. A good example is the R300 support in the radeon DRM module. Did I miss anything? - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are just that - utter nonsense. And now lets stop the car nonsense :-) I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes I've heard from mechanics about how impossible it is to service new model Fords these days. Without the engine management systems diagnostics devices they can't do anything. Ford controls who gets these devices and demands a cut of every service, essentially setting the price. Service centers that don't play ball don't get the devices or get the devices taken away from them if they question Ford's pricing policies. Of course, this should be illegal, and our governments should be enforcing antitrust laws, but Ford is a big company and has lots of lawyers.. Repco and other after market manufacturers can't easily make a clone of these devices like they do every other part, because reverse engineering software is not really as advanced as reverse engineering spare parts.. or maybe software reverse engineering is just so much more expensive than automotive reverse engineering that it is not cost effective to clone these devices.. or maybe they're just afraid of the lawyers too. Trent - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as > that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't > buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter nonsense (sorry). So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any more. Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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: Binary Drivers
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are just that - utter nonsense. >> I have no idea why you assume that "having the right to do X" implies >> "must be told how to do X". The have the right (except as laws >> prohibit it) to modify the car's systems, but (except for some >> specific legal requirements) the manufacturer is not required to >> explain anything, even basic operation. >It's really common sense. Imagine if you buy the right to use my >car, but I don't give you the key. I would sue you for fraud, because the key is "key" in using the car. >Can I say, "yes, you have the right to use my car, you bought >that, but that doesn't mean I have to tell you how to use my >car." You don't need to tell me how to use your car. I know that. All you have to do is hand over the car, all the papers and of course the key. You do not have to tell me how the motor-control is programmed. That knowledge is not needed to operate the car. >>> If I buy a device that has a safety of some kind, the >>> manufacturer cannot prohibit me from removing or disabling the >>> safety unless some law gives them that authority. ... They might be obliged to make it as hard as possible to tamper with the safety to prevent their (in the sense they made and sold it) devices being used in illegal ways. Otherwise they could end up in court themselves. >> Yes, I agree. However, they are completely allowed to make it >> arbitrarily hard for you to remove (by, for instance, welding the >> safety in place). > I do not think they can. You cannot at the same time argue that > they sold me the right to remove the safety and that they can take > active steps to stop me from using the safety. The are not stopping you from using the safety. They are stopping you from misusing it. And common sense does not show why they would be required to help you in breaking the law. So, any of this is OK in my opinion: * voiding the warranty (and stating so) if you tamper with the safety * block the function of the device if the safety has been tampered with * not telling you how the thing works at all (unless you are a certified car maintainer under NDA). >Again, the same example -- you buy the right to use my car, but >I shoot at you every time you step on my property. Oh, come on. This is such utter nonsense. What has it to do with the topic? >Or I sell you my car, but right before I do, I put on a lock >that only I can unlock and make it deliberately hard for you >to remove it. If it blocks me from using the car, I sue you for fraud. Because you prevent the common sense use of my property. >> Again, (IANAL), I think this is simply a misconception. Buyng a >> physical object gives you the right to do anything with it that the >> law allows, > >Exactly. >> but imposes no obligation on the seller to explain it >> (other than specific restrictions hte law may apply to specific >> classes of objects for safety or other reasons). Absolutely correct. >>It's up to you, in deciding whether to buy it, to decide >>whether it comes with sufficient documentation to satisfy >>your needs. > >I think that simply defies common sense. If I sold you a house >and then refused to provide you the keys, and made you break >down the doors to get in, you'd have every right to sue me. >A house *has* *to* come with keys. If not, the seller should >bear the cost of your inability to use the house in a >reasonable way without damaging it. Another completely nonsensical example. Of course, if I sell you a house and keep the keys after you have paid the agreed upon price, you can sue me for fraud. But I do not have to explain how the lock works? Do I? >You cannot sell something and then claim that you retained >certain rights over the thing you sold unless you either >negotiated for those rights or some law allows you to keep those >rights. If you sell a computer, and it is password-protected, the >password has to come with it. You cannot keep it a secret. You >cannot negligently "happen to" lose it. Sure, I need to give you the password or a means to legally reset it. But I do not have to explain the password algorithm to you. I don't even have to tell you which algorithm is used, or which language it is implemented in. >When you buy a video car, you are *not* buying the right to use >that video card with Windows. You are buying all the rights to >the video card, to use it any way you please. The manufacturer >has no right (because it sold that right when it sold the video >card) to interfere or obstruct your right to use it as you please. It depends what is written on the box, or what is in the contract. If it says "works with XXX" (and it does), you have no right to demand that it works with YYY, or that the manufacturer has to help you make it work with YYY. The manufacturer may not be allowed to *actively* prevent you from making it work with YYY, but I see no legal problem (IANAL, in any jurisdiction of
RE: Binary Drivers
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are just that - utter nonsense. I have no idea why you assume that having the right to do X implies must be told how to do X. The have the right (except as laws prohibit it) to modify the car's systems, but (except for some specific legal requirements) the manufacturer is not required to explain anything, even basic operation. It's really common sense. Imagine if you buy the right to use my car, but I don't give you the key. I would sue you for fraud, because the key is key in using the car. Can I say, yes, you have the right to use my car, you bought that, but that doesn't mean I have to tell you how to use my car. You don't need to tell me how to use your car. I know that. All you have to do is hand over the car, all the papers and of course the key. You do not have to tell me how the motor-control is programmed. That knowledge is not needed to operate the car. If I buy a device that has a safety of some kind, the manufacturer cannot prohibit me from removing or disabling the safety unless some law gives them that authority. ... They might be obliged to make it as hard as possible to tamper with the safety to prevent their (in the sense they made and sold it) devices being used in illegal ways. Otherwise they could end up in court themselves. Yes, I agree. However, they are completely allowed to make it arbitrarily hard for you to remove (by, for instance, welding the safety in place). I do not think they can. You cannot at the same time argue that they sold me the right to remove the safety and that they can take active steps to stop me from using the safety. The are not stopping you from using the safety. They are stopping you from misusing it. And common sense does not show why they would be required to help you in breaking the law. So, any of this is OK in my opinion: * voiding the warranty (and stating so) if you tamper with the safety * block the function of the device if the safety has been tampered with * not telling you how the thing works at all (unless you are a certified car maintainer under NDA). Again, the same example -- you buy the right to use my car, but I shoot at you every time you step on my property. Oh, come on. This is such utter nonsense. What has it to do with the topic? Or I sell you my car, but right before I do, I put on a lock that only I can unlock and make it deliberately hard for you to remove it. If it blocks me from using the car, I sue you for fraud. Because you prevent the common sense use of my property. Again, (IANAL), I think this is simply a misconception. Buyng a physical object gives you the right to do anything with it that the law allows, Exactly. but imposes no obligation on the seller to explain it (other than specific restrictions hte law may apply to specific classes of objects for safety or other reasons). Absolutely correct. It's up to you, in deciding whether to buy it, to decide whether it comes with sufficient documentation to satisfy your needs. I think that simply defies common sense. If I sold you a house and then refused to provide you the keys, and made you break down the doors to get in, you'd have every right to sue me. A house *has* *to* come with keys. If not, the seller should bear the cost of your inability to use the house in a reasonable way without damaging it. Another completely nonsensical example. Of course, if I sell you a house and keep the keys after you have paid the agreed upon price, you can sue me for fraud. But I do not have to explain how the lock works? Do I? You cannot sell something and then claim that you retained certain rights over the thing you sold unless you either negotiated for those rights or some law allows you to keep those rights. If you sell a computer, and it is password-protected, the password has to come with it. You cannot keep it a secret. You cannot negligently happen to lose it. Sure, I need to give you the password or a means to legally reset it. But I do not have to explain the password algorithm to you. I don't even have to tell you which algorithm is used, or which language it is implemented in. When you buy a video car, you are *not* buying the right to use that video card with Windows. You are buying all the rights to the video card, to use it any way you please. The manufacturer has no right (because it sold that right when it sold the video card) to interfere or obstruct your right to use it as you please. It depends what is written on the box, or what is in the contract. If it says works with XXX (and it does), you have no right to demand that it works with YYY, or that the manufacturer has to help you make it work with YYY. The manufacturer may not be allowed to *actively* prevent you from making it work with YYY, but I see no legal problem (IANAL, in any jurisdiction of the wolrd) if they make it hard for you by being *passive*. If they promised that it
Re: Binary Drivers
On 12/25/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter nonsense (sorry). So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any more. Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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: Binary Drivers
On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are just that - utter nonsense. And now lets stop the car nonsense :-) I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes I've heard from mechanics about how impossible it is to service new model Fords these days. Without the engine management systems diagnostics devices they can't do anything. Ford controls who gets these devices and demands a cut of every service, essentially setting the price. Service centers that don't play ball don't get the devices or get the devices taken away from them if they question Ford's pricing policies. Of course, this should be illegal, and our governments should be enforcing antitrust laws, but Ford is a big company and has lots of lawyers.. Repco and other after market manufacturers can't easily make a clone of these devices like they do every other part, because reverse engineering software is not really as advanced as reverse engineering spare parts.. or maybe software reverse engineering is just so much more expensive than automotive reverse engineering that it is not cost effective to clone these devices.. or maybe they're just afraid of the lawyers too. Trent - 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: Binary Drivers
On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote: On 12/25/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter nonsense (sorry). So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any more. Let's summarize the current situation: 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products, as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver). 2) Hardware vendors don't want to tell us how to program their products, because they think this information is their secret sauce (or maybe their competitor's secret sauce). 3) Hardware vendors don't tell us how to program their products, because they know about (1) and they believe (2). 4) We need products with datasheets because of our development model. 5) We want products with capabilities that these vendors advertise. 6) Products that satisfy both (4) and (5) are often scarce or non-existent. So far, the suggestions I've seen to resolve the above conflict fall into three categories: a) Force vendors to provide datasheets. b) Entice vendors to provide datasheets. c) Reverse engineer the hardware and write our own datasheets. Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of analogy and allegory. Alternatively, one can try to change the law through government channels. Solution (b) requires market pressure, charity, or visionary management. We can't exert enough market pressure currently to make much difference. Charity sometimes gives us datasheets for old hardware. Visionary management is the future. Solution (c) is what we do now, with varying degrees of success. A good example is the R300 support in the radeon DRM module. Did I miss anything? - 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: Binary Drivers
--- James C Georgas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote: On 12/25/06, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use. That includes using the car to violate emission control measures. If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as that right was owned by the car manufacturer), I didn't buy the whole care -- just *some* of the rights to use it. just to be dense - what makes you think that the car manufacturer has any legal right to violate emission control measures? What an utter nonsense (sorry). So, lets stop the stupid car comparisons. They are no being funny any more. Let's summarize the current situation: 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products, as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver). Correct, as far as I can tell. 2) Hardware vendors don't want to tell us how to program their products, because they think this information is their secret sauce (or maybe their competitor's secret sauce). - or they are ashamed to show the world what kind of crap they sell - or they have lost (never had) the documentation themselves. I tend to no believe this 3) Hardware vendors don't tell us how to program their products, because they know about (1) and they believe (2). - or they are just ignorant 4) We need products with datasheets because of our development model. - correct 5) We want products with capabilities that these vendors advertise. we want open-spec products that meet the performance of the high-end closed-spec products 6) Products that satisfy both (4) and (5) are often scarce or non-existent. unfortunatelly So far, the suggestions I've seen to resolve the above conflict fall into three categories: a) Force vendors to provide datasheets. b) Entice vendors to provide datasheets. c) Reverse engineer the hardware and write our own datasheets. Solution (a) involves denial of point (1), mostly through the use of analogy and allegory. Alternatively, one can try to change the law through government channels. good luck Solution (b) requires market pressure, charity, or visionary management. We can't exert enough market pressure currently to make much difference. Charity sometimes gives us datasheets for old hardware. Visionary management is the future. - Old hardware is not interesting in most markets - Visionary mamangement is rare Solution (c) is what we do now, with varying degrees of success. A good example is the R300 support in the radeon DRM module. But the R300 does not meet 5) Cheers Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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: Binary Drivers
--- Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are just that - utter nonsense. And now lets stop the car nonsense :-) I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes I've heard from mechanics about how impossible it is to service new model Fords these days. A behaviour that is not very different from gthe GMs, BMWs, daimler-Chryslers, Toyota, you name them of this world. I never said I liked the attitude. Without the engine management systems diagnostics devices they can't do anything. Ford controls who gets these devices and demands a cut of every service, essentially setting the price. Service centers that don't play ball don't get the devices or get the devices taken away from them if they question Ford's pricing policies. Of course, this should be illegal, and our governments should be enforcing antitrust laws, but Ford is a big company and has lots of lawyers.. Actually we have/had a similar situation here in Germany. We are used to having licensed dealerships which are only allowed to sell one car brand. This might be illegal by EU laws now. Repco and other after market manufacturers can't easily make a clone of these devices like they do every other part, because reverse engineering software is not really as advanced as reverse engineering spare parts.. or maybe software reverse engineering is just so much more expensive than automotive reverse engineering that it is not cost effective to clone these devices.. or maybe they're just afraid of the lawyers too. Understanding software is more difficult, because you also have to understand the working prinziple of the underlying hardware, which you often have no specs for either. So you have to reverse engineer both layers. Cheers Martin -- Martin Knoblauch email: k n o b i AT knobisoft DOT de www: http://www.knobisoft.de - 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/
