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
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't software. Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
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 hardware
either.
--
Giuseppe
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a one
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
legal risks than commercial
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
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 images of
the kernel. Full
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, 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
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
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
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
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
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, version 2:
The
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
problems for the users.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:07:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
You have lots of possible legal problems of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
time.
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,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a court.
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
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,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation.
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the
percieved problem, or the ones discussing it.
Matthew Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of
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 like to exercise my right
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a crit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which is
mentioned in acenic_firmware.h) since - as far as I know - firmware is
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
is
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a crit :
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a crit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
Or to support advanced features which can be disabled.
TSO firmware is commonly used these days.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people
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
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
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
Richard == Richard B Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware,
Richard and not MICROcode.
Oh be real, there's no real difference between them and you know it.
It's all about where the bits are stored and what they tend to do in a
Richard B. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware, and
not MICROcode. If somebody has decided to rename FIRMware to
SOFTware,
Debian has undertaken to change the meaning of a whole lot of words,
including software and free.
This whole
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
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
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
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
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 16:30 schrieb Humberto Massa:
I don't recall anyone asking Intel to give theirs designs away. This
thread is about:
1. (mainly) some firmware hexdumps present in the kernel source tree are
either expicitly marked as being GPL'd or unmarked, in which case one
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 17:01 schrieb Humberto Massa:
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
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
Or to support advanced features which can be
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
legal risks than commercial distributions, can you explain why Debian
exposes the legal risks
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
in
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
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
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
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
On Tue, 5 April 2005 15:28:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
* Firmwares such as tg3 should be shipped with the kernel tarball.
As in /usr/src/linux/firmware/tg3.tar? Would be a simple patch to add
that one.
Jörn
--
The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software
than
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.
On Tue,
On Llu, 2005-04-04 at 21:47, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)
There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.
Firmware being seperate does make a lot of sense. It isn't going away
but it doesn't generally belong in kernel now we have
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
I don't think anyone here has disagreed. What almost everyone has
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 10:32 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT*
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people bringing up the issue and then failing to do
anything about it
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
I think they will be accepted if they first introduce a transition
period where tg3 will do request_firmware() and only use the built-in
firmware if that fails.
Fine with me.
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
Hello Jeff, ...
If i can believe what i see in :
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/anno/drivers/net/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/net|related/drivers/net/tg3.c|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
(which may or may not be correct and complete, since i am not really familiar
with bk and
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's what we should do. I currently don't have any firmware
requiring
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
entirely.
I think the
Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
entirely.
I think the infrasturcture is quite mature. We have a lot of drivers
that require it to
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:39:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's
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
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can
see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the
kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection
I agree. And that really doesn't need a lot of infrastructure,
basically just a tarball that unpacks to /lib/firmware, maybe a specfile
and debian/ dir in addition.
At the moment there is -zero- infrastructure that would allow my tg3 to
continue working, when I upgrade to a tg3
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex dumps
are not source code). What Sven asked was: Hey, can I state
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 harder for me
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage
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
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
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 images of
the kernel. Full stop.
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
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a crit :
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 images of
the kernel. Full
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 ÿÿ 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a ÿÿcrit :
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
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 14:17 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a crit :
You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares
should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not
free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the main
archive. The
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a crit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is
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...
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is considered a derivative work of the
gpl'd code.
The GPL states In addition,
[MFT set to -legal, as this is becoming legal arcana probably not
particularly interesting to any other list.]
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
There are two solutions to this issue, either you abide by the GPL
and provide also the source code of those firmware binaries (the
prefered
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:56:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 à 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a écrit :
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
Hello,
quick sumary
Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs, and
to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the
copyright holders of said non-free firmware blobls is needed, read below for
details.
/quick sumary
Please keep everyone in
Sven Luther writes:
Hello,
quick sumary
Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs, and
to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the
copyright holders of said non-free firmware blobls is needed, read below for
details.
/quick sumary
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:26:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Hello,
quick sumary
Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs,
and
to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the
copyright holders of said
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out of the muddy situation, all the people having
contributed
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing it.
Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in
the Linux source base. Last time this came up, the Acenic
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver,
like they did with tg3 and others.
This sucks, yes.
--
ciao,
Marco (@debian.org)
signature.asc
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing it.
[...]
All i am asking is that *the copyright holders* of said firmware
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
problem, or the ones discussing it.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html
Can you summarize the conclusion of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 04, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
Then probably the extremists in Debian will manage to kill your driver,
like they did with tg3 and others.
Their
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
