On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:30:04PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Perhaps I should construct a package for non-free which instructs users to
download Broadcom's driver; then unpacks it, and converts and installs the
firmware files appropriately? (I *am* sure that Broadcom permits
distribution
* Thomas Bushnell:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intent implied by publically releasing a work under the GPL is well
understood and widely known. I don't believe that they would stand any
chance of getting an injunction, let alone damages.
You cannot infer person A's intent in
Florian Weimer writes:
Is U.S. law really *that* different?
No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
practice in lawsuits.
--
John Hasler
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something merely by
assuming that it must be the same as persons B, C, and D.
Well, of course you can. A lot of contracts are made this way (for
example, if you buy something in a shop).
Actually, no.
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
practice in lawsuits.
Right, but this is not imputation of intent, and it's generally done
under the UCC which worked a sea change in US commercial contracts law
for this purpose, but
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they
are simply being sloppy about licensing.
You know well that upstream is not
John Hasler wrote:
Nathanael Nerode writes:
To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing.
I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can
easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from
what you assume.
The intent
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas writes:
In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying you
must distribute complete source and then failing to provide it.
* Nathanael Nerode:
Unless of course the firmware itself is GPL'd, and therefore no one
can legally give it out without offering the source as well.
It is GPLed. This is why it hasn't been put in non-free. :-P
Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
distribute.
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
distribute.
Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
released
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
released under the GPL, and actually have a case? They might as well
sue Debian because the
On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 09:06 -0400, sean finney wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 11:40:30AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
might sue you for distributing something that they have written and
released under the GPL, and
sean writes:
they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
providing the source code to the firmware blobs. if they were in fact in
violation of said terms, debian could not legally distribute the
Scripsit sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
providing the source code to the firmware blobs.
The copyright holder cannot logically be in violation of his
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Scripsit sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for
arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not
providing the source code to the firmware blobs.
The copyright
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nathanael Nerode:
Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
distribute.
Of course it is safe to distribute. What do you fear? That Broadcom
might sue you for distributing something that they have
Thomas writes:
In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying you
must distribute complete source and then failing to provide it.
He has provided what he claims is source. If he sues me for redistributing
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you mean by legally? Copyright infringement is a tort, and there
is no way they could win an infringement lawsuit against a distributor for
failing to redistribute the source for the blobs when they did not supply
it themselves and yet asserted
Nathanael Nerode writes:
To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing.
I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can
easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from
what you assume.
The intent implied by publically
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas writes:
In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying you
must distribute complete source and then failing to provide it.
He has provided what he claims
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The intent implied by publically releasing a work under the GPL is well
understood and widely known. I don't believe that they would stand any
chance of getting an injunction, let alone damages.
You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 10:47:26AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
What do you mean by legally? Copyright infringement is a tort, and there
is no way they could win an infringement lawsuit against a distributor for
failing to redistribute the source for the blobs when they did not supply
it
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, one would be well advised to obtain an explicit waiver
on the point, rather than to rely on such.
Regardless, the question is irrelevant to Debian, because we require
source.
Debian does not require source for non-free. The
Hi,
Daniel Freedman wrote:
Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
compability with this without downloading the firmware and violating
the DFSG?
Since the tg3 driver doesn't work with my BCM5702
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 07:10:33PM -0400, Daniel Freedman wrote:
Unfortunately, I believe that my server board contains one of the rare
on-board Broadcom chipsets that is completely unable to function (best
as I can tell), without downloading this firmware, or without at least
disabling the
hi
* Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-10 15:46]:
Daniel Freedman wrote:
Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
compability with this without downloading the firmware and violating
the
posted mailed
Paul Hampson wrote:
On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 07:10:33PM -0400, Daniel Freedman wrote:
Unfortunately, I believe that my server board contains one of the rare
on-board Broadcom chipsets that is completely unable to function (best
as I can tell), without downloading this firmware,
posted mailed
Nico Golde wrote:
hi
* Roland Stigge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-10-10 15:46]:
Daniel Freedman wrote:
Anyway, just thought I'd see what people think of this, and how the
Debian community wants to proceed. Is there some way to enable
compability with this without downloading
On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they
are simply being sloppy about licensing.
You know well that upstream is not being sloppy, but
29 matches
Mail list logo
