** Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton ::
telling people to roll their own kernel (mr horms) isn't an
acceptable option, either. i may be able to do that (mr horms)
but other people won't be able to.
you going (mr horms) to tell me and people like me that i
should throw away perfectly good
Just curious, what does bit 8 (SYS_SETPCAP) means? Why is it off? Does it have
anything to do with your bug?
--
[]s,
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
Humberto Massa wrote:
First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
possible.
From section 3 of the GNU GPL
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
fine.
Then I would
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to where
one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its initialization,
without having the source that generated that microcode, we are in
a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their designs away.
I
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel
Raul Miller wrote:
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious
copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass
into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing
this in order to solve
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot
Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
This ofcourse doesn't actually solve Debian's distribution issues since
the keyspan firmware can only be distributed as part of 'Linux or other
Open Source operating system kernel'.
Well, if this is the case, it
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of aggregation. I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not really...
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Horms wrote:
with 2.6.11.X, including the numbering (i.e. next upload should
be kernel-source-2.6.11, package version 2.6.11.6-1).
I agree it would be good to sync up the patches, but I don't think
there is any need to include the .6 in
Steve Langasek wrote, among other stuff:
As I touched on briefly on IRC, there is an upcoming kernel security
fix that requires a bit of discussion. It appears that one of the
security fixes that was included in kernel-source-2.6.8 2.6.8-14 (and
backed out, at least temporarily, in 2.6.8-15),
J. Grant wrote:
Hi Massa,
Thank you for your response.
Welcome. It seems to me that this is really a config mistake on your
part. You have put the
root=/dev/sda3 hda=ide-scsi
in the wrong place (you said it yourself that the hda=ide-scsi was an
addition by you).
The right place to put it is
J. Grant wrote:
Hello,
I have just noticed a bug in the kernel install scripts. I have to
manually fix my /boot/menu.lst.
Hi. You left out the most important part of menu.lst (the one that has
the parameters that update-grub copies into the automagically generated
part).
Massa
--
To
Gordon Jackson wrote:
I installed Sarge (2.6.8-2-686) and ran into the same issue, exactly. My
root is on a scsi drive and I have an ide that is used for other
stuff...
The Debian installer recognizes all of the drives, lets me partition
them, set up mounts, etc... but when booting it's as though
Sven, the comments I will make here are more or less a compilation of
many things I have said before on d-l and various other places on the
Net.
Sven Luther wrote:
Hello,
I write this to obtain clarification of the linux kernel firmware
situation,
since it is quite similar to the firmware-flash
@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
Your reaction is uncalled
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
for a large percentage of users. Those users
@ 17/06/2004 18:27 : wrote Raul Miller :
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means
that a ...
work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
@ 17/06/2004 21:21 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Indeed. For that matter, disassemblers perform mechanical translations,
so if the disassembled code were not a derived work of the executable,
that would greatly aid most reverse-engineering efforts.
- Josh Triplett
No, mechanical translations are not
@ 18/06/2004 09:52 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is. Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's just
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
However, this sentence makes clear that works based on the Program
is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
In addition,
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Joe Wreschnig wrote: [snip]
When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived
from the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the
firmware is a derivative of
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
Raul Miller writes:
The deception is calling it great lengths. When I said the GPL
deals with collective works in just two paragraphs you focused on
the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
other (because you don't like what
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
law
32 matches
Mail list logo
