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
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 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the
driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
you separate the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
...
The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily
muster
the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
...
The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily muster
the ressources to fight of a legal case, even one which is a dubious one,
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 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
If you believe the linker merely aggregates the object code for the
driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
you separate
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
Scripsit Humberto Massa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
this is not that tricky at all, and that the mere
aggregation clause applies to the combination, for various
reasons, with a great degree of safety.
When was this alleged conclusion reached?
No-one is saying that the linker merely aggregates object
code for the driver; what *is* being said is: in the case of
firmware, especially if the firmware is neither a derivative
work on the kernel (see above) nor the firmware includes part
of the kernel (duh), it is *fairly* *safe* to
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 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, 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 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, 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, 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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:
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
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 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 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
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.
Nope,
On Apr 04, Sven Luther [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.
Nope, they were simply moved to non-free, as it should. I
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.
And
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 that problem.
Matthew Wilcox 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.
Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in
the Linux source base. Last time this
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
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 ?
Ian I think what Greg may have meant[0] was that if it bothers
Ian you, then you should act by contacting the copyright holders
Ian privately yourself in each case that you come across and
Ian asking them if you may add a little comment etc, and then
Ian submit patches once you
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
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
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Matthew Wilcox 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.
Actually, there are some legitimate
Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Matthew Wilcox 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.
Actually, there are some
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is not
of dubious legal standing, and that we could get sued over for GPL violation.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700,
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is
not
of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
the
firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(-project added to the Cc:, non-debian related lists removed)
No documentation for the C compiler (not even a documentation of the
options) will be neither fun for the users of Debian nor for the Debian
maintainers - but it's the future of Debian...
101 - 165 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
