On Sb, 10 aug 19, 07:50:02, John Hasler wrote:
> I wrote:
> > I'd just flat out restrict them to five years. Twenty is too long.
>
> Andrei writes:
> > That would work against inventors as instead of buying useful patents
> > companies would just wait 5 years and then use it without any charge.
I wrote:
> I'd just flat out restrict them to five years. Twenty is too long.
Andrei writes:
> That would work against inventors as instead of buying useful patents
> companies would just wait 5 years and then use it without any charge.
Anyone can practice an expired patent without any charge.
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:52:39 +0300
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 08 aug 19, 19:05:03, John Hasler wrote:
> > deloptes writes:
> >
> > > Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial
> > > use to 5y.
> >
> > I'd just flat out restrict them to five years. Twenty is too
On Jo, 08 aug 19, 09:20:29, The Wanderer wrote:
>
> As far as I'm aware, there are significantly more projects out there to
> produce free motherboard firmware (BIOS / UEFI images) than there are to
> produce free firmware for any of those other things.
One has to start somewhere and the BIOS
On Jo, 08 aug 19, 19:05:03, John Hasler wrote:
> deloptes writes:
>
> > Entirely eliminate [patents] - no, but restrict if no commercial use
> > to 5y.
>
> I'd just flat out restrict them to five years. Twenty is too long.
That would work against inventors as instead of buying useful patents
t writes:
> There are many countries where such (so-called "shrink-wrap licenses",
> because you have to tear the package open to discover it) aren't
> legally binding.
A true shrink-wrap "license" is one that is visible and readable through
the transparent shrink-wrap package.
--
John Hasler
On Thu 08/Aug/2019 13:50:40 +0200 John Hasler wrote:
> tomas writes:
>> This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free
>> software, you should know about it, and you should know which buy
>> decision led to it (so you can take that into account at your next buy
>> decision).
>
>
Alessandro Vesely writes:
> I had always considered those must-reply-yes questions akin to
> extortion. My answer reflects the only possibility to use something I
> bought, not my free thought.
If the contract is presented before the sale is completed they are not
different from "You must agree
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> On Thu 08/Aug/2019 15:02:38 +0200 John Hasler wrote:
>
> > These sorts of "licenses" are actually attempts at a civil contract.
> > They really have nothing to do with patent or copyright law. A civil
> > contract requires
On Thu 08/Aug/2019 15:02:38 +0200 John Hasler wrote:
> These sorts of "licenses" are actually attempts at a civil contract.
> They really have nothing to do with patent or copyright law. A civil
> contract requires agreement in advance, though.
I had always considered those must-reply-yes
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 08:51:15 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Celejar writes:
> > It does? Here's what the "Debian Position on Software Patents" says:
>
> > Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
> > Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know
Celejar writes:
> It does? Here's what the "Debian Position on Software Patents" says:
> Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by patents;
> Debian contributors should not package or distribute software they know
> to infringe a patent.
The key word is "knowingly". If you
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 19:05:03 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
...
> Also realize that patent infringement is not a crime (in the USA).
> Government won't enforce your patent for you. It is a tort, and is
> grounds for the patent owner to sue for actual damages (there are no
> statutory damages as with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 9/8/19 6:59 am, John Hasler wrote:
> Shahryar Afifi wrote:
>> Currently I have X61 with Middleton BIOS that claims to be free.
>> Is that also not the case?
>
> We are talking about the microcode that is stored inside the cpu,
> not the
On Thursday 08 August 2019 21:17:25 Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> On 09/08/2019 12:05, John Hasler wrote:
> > There is a lot wrong with the patent system. Twenty years is too
> > long. Fees are too high. Processing is too slow. The language used
> > in the disclosures is arcane (the disclosure
On 09/08/2019 12:05, John Hasler wrote:
There is a lot wrong with the patent system. Twenty years is too long.
Fees are too high. Processing is too slow. The language used in the
disclosures is arcane (the disclosure is supposed to teach the invention
to someone "skilled in the art", but the
deloptes writes:
> So you mean after AMD reverse engineered Intel, they make it illegal
> for their own, by license agreement?
They can't make it illegal. They can make it a breach of contract for
anyone who agreed to their terms to reverse engineer it and sue them for
damages if they do.
I can
John Hasler wrote:
>> The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.
>
> Legally. Reverse-engineering is not illegal in the USA.
>
>> And unfortunately the US has been protecting monopoly and fake
>> competition for years. Such things as Microsoft, Apple and Google
>>
Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> Currently I have X61 with Middleton BIOS that claims to be free. Is
> that also not the case?
We are talking about the microcode that is stored inside the cpu, not
the BIOS which is x86 code stored in NVRAM on the motherboard. In Intel
64 bit cpus this currently includes
Brad writes:
> A brief internet search resulted in me reading an article stating
> that, in the USA at least, the EULA supersedes the user's legal
> allowance for reverse engineering (case cited in the article) the
> software.
> So, when a person agrees to the terms of the EULA, they waive their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/8/19 11:06 pm, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> Thank you for this acknowledgment. Currently I have X61 with
> Middleton BIOS that claims to be free. Is that also not the case?
You can have a free BIOS, "Core boot, or similar?" ... but the CPU
itself
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 06:22:41 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
> Shahryar Afifi writes:
> > Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so what
> > kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?
>
> That microcode package contains bug fixes and updates for the microcode
> that the manufacturer
John Hasler writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer writes:
>> The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
>> includes the paragraph:
>
>>You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
>>Software or any portion thereof.
>
> Quite unenforceable, of course.
When discussing questions like "how free is this
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 09:20:29AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
I'm not familiar with that particular product, but the BIOS isn't the
CPU firmware, although it may implicitly contain and apply files which
update the CPU firmware; the BIOS is the motherboard firmware, which is
a different kettle of
On 2019-08-08 at 09:06, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 17:37 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/8/19 2:27 pm, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
>>
>>> Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so
>>> what kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?
>>
>> Here's
On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 21:27:34 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-08-07 at 23:11 -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 17:33:52 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> > > With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and
> > > users,
> > > who made GNU/Linux and
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 06:06:24AM -0700, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 17:37 +1000, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/8/19 2:27 pm, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> > > Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so
> > > what kernel module runs my cpu as
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> Software or any portion thereof.
deloptes writes:
> The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.
Legally. Reverse-engineering is not illegal in the USA.
> And unfortunately the US has been
On 2019-08-08, Brad Rogers wrote:
>
> So, when a person agrees to the terms of the EULA, they waive their
> legal right to reverse engineer. If you wish to NOT waive your rights,
> then you don't accept the EULA. Of course you then won't be able to
> install, never mind use, the software.
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 07:51:00 -0400
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello rhkra...@gmail.com,
> * that statement / requirment is illegal (or not supported by (US?)
> law)
A brief internet search resulted in me reading an article stating that,
in the USA at least, the EULA supersedes the user's legal
tomas writes:
> This is one of those cases: if you're using a piece of non-free
> software, you should know about it, and you should know which buy
> decision led to it (so you can take that into account at your next buy
> decision).
There is also a practical reason to keep non-free for the
On Wednesday, August 07, 2019 11:03:46 PM John Hasler wrote:
> Joe Pfeiffer writes:
> > The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
> >
> > includes the paragraph:
> >You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> >Software or any portion thereof.
>
> Quite unenforceable, of course.
When
Shahryar Afifi writes:
> Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so what
> kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?
That microcode package contains bug fixes and updates for the microcode
that the manufacturer shipped the cpu with. The cpu will run without it
but the spyware
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 08:50:05AM +0200, john doe wrote:
[...]
> None-free is a repository that you enable if you need to, it is not the
> default in Debian if I am not mistaking.
This is correct, and I, for one am glad Debian has kept up to pressure
to changing it ("but... but... Ubuntu can
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 8/8/19 2:27 pm, Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so
> what kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?
Here's part of the problem.
The CPU has it's own microcode, when you buy it; the
On 8/8/2019 6:11 AM, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 17:33:52 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
>> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
>> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
>> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious
Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> Very well said. If debian free is not using amd64 microcode, so what
> kernel module runs my cpu as 64bit?
I was thinking the CPU is running and not something else running the CPU.
I do not think you need something special to run 64bit CPU as such.
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
> Software or any portion thereof.
The irony here is that AMD started by reverse engineering Intel.
And unfortunately the US has been protecting monopoly and fake competition
for years.
Such things as Microsoft,
On Wed 07 Aug 2019 at 17:33:52 (-0700), Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
>
> Are all binaries in the kernel
Joe Pfeiffer writes:
> The LICENCE.amd-ucode file
> includes the paragraph:
>You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble this
>Software or any portion thereof.
Quite unenforceable, of course.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
Shahryar Afifi writes:
> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other distributions possible,
> here lies a humble, ignorance and yet curious question.
>
> Are all binaries in the kernel code were writing from scratch? Are
>
You don't need a license for an ISA to compile for it. You need a license
only if you're developing a CPU that uses that ISA.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 19:34 Shahryar Afifi wrote:
> With respect to all the contributors, developers, hobbyist and users,
> who made GNU/Linux and Debian and all other
42 matches
Mail list logo
