Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Maintaining a bunch of firmware .(u)debs and keeping them in sync with
their appropriate kernel version is surely more effort that two kernel
packages.
No, it's not. The firmware, if done right, will be in
architecture-independent, kernel-version-neutral packages.
--
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he
thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of
modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then
I
Lewis Jardine wrote:
[snip]
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
If
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
is a clear-cut violation of the terms of the GPL.
I don't think even existing practice
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.
I'd hope so,
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:22:29 +1000, Hamish Moffatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 06:02:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The former is fine, this merely reinstates the former release
policy. But wilfully distributing software that violates the
license it is shipped under
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:20:10AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:21:27AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
For possible, that is, unsubstantioned license violation claims, yes.
Distributing a GPL binary linked against code whose source is not available
is a clear-cut violation of the terms
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware?
Good idea. And two interesting posts related tot his issue:
(Wed, 10 Dec 2003 )
http://groups.google.fr/groups?selm=11gWH-4XN-1%40gated-at.bofh.itoe=UTF-8output=gplain
And I think this
Stephen writes:
In these cases of ambiguity it makes sense to me to ask the copyright
holder to clarify for us instead of assuming that they're violating their
own license.
Linus is only the copyright owner of those portions of the kernel that he
personally wrote. Each contributor owns the
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:36:20AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
[I think I really should have sent this originally to -legal... feel
free to send it back over there if you think it's more
appropriate.[1]]
M-F-T (hopefully correctly) set.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004, Michael Banck wrote:
I would not
Thiemo Seufer said on Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:18:00AM +0200,:
What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver
support and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a
rather
That is what I used to think, till I realised that the prospect of a
large number
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 08:04:13AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Has anyone asked Linus what his feelings are regarding firmware? If he
thinks it's acceptable (or possibly even the 'preferred form of
modification') to have in Linux and that it's not violating the GPL then
I don't think we have
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I concur with the other responses: Linus is not the sole copyright holder.
I'll also reiterate the other problem: even if we believe that the entire
Linux kernel developer body agrees (which may be the case, though I doubt
it), I'm sure there's a
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
If it's the case, then it's the case. Inconvenient does not imply
false, whether we like it or
Lewis Jardine wrote:
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of
'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of
copyright infringement.
So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright
* Glenn Maynard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get
clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv.
If it's the case, then it's the case.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:34:40PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the
kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs
that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all
risk like getting
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:51:32PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner we can't
get out of. We *need* a clarification. This assumption of the worst
possible isn't acceptable or even reasonable. Given that we need a
clarification the best
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
I tend to prefer the author's opinion over third-party interpretations.
The author's opinion
[I'm not subcribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 01:47:17AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Do we? WRT kernel firmware, the driver authors seem to see it as a
collection of works (with the firmware being one part), and at least
I tend to prefer the author's opinion
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who are.
From what I gathered, the vast majority of kernel
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
terms of those who
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
This isn't a matter of a stance; this is a matter of trying to
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
[I'm not subscribed to -legal]
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:22:58AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Currently those concerns are vented by people who aren't authors
of kernel stuff.
Indeed: it's by people who are concerned about violating the licensing
Glenn Maynard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 03:45:37AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
An unrelated third party, whose stance doesn't matter for the issue.
How is Debian unrelated? They're risking violating the GPL, and putting
themselves at legal risk.
If you want to avoid every imaginable
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:07:55AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
If you want to avoid every imaginable legal risk, you have to shut down
Debian immediately.
Your arguments could be used to dismiss *any* question about possible
license violation.
--
Glenn Maynard
27 matches
Mail list logo
