On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:53:39 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
Try a different exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now use it as a cryptographic key
to
encrypt an email. Is the email now a derived work?
Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org:
So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When
Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says
stuff that is dumb, I'm not afraid to say that the emperor has no
clothes.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The point I was trying to make is that just like the email would be useless
unless I have a Quran so will a program be useless without the library it
depends on. I did say it wasn't a very good analogy.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Marc Joliet mar...@gmx.de wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:13:01 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org:
So, who cares what they think? They don't get to write the law. When
Linus says stuff that is smart, I'll admire him for it. When he says
stuff that
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Uploading is copying. Downloading is also copying. Unauthorized copying
is an unauthorized use that is governed by the copyright laws.
Therefore, unauthorized uploading and unauthorized downloading are
unauthorized uses
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license,
but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright
law.
What is a license but a statement of the intent of the authors as to what
can and can't be done with their work?
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski
jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license,
but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright
law.
What is a license but a
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/18/2015 09:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
I think the kernel devs would be hard-pressed to mount some kind of
GPL infringement lawsuit. In general US courts have tended to block
attempts to use
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:00:15 AM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/18/2015 08:39 PM, Dale wrote:
Here's a clue. Why doesn't the kernel devs let users decide what
drivers they are comfy with using? If they don't
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on
the GPL exports.
What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant statute or
court case. That is the issue here.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski
jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license,
but also with the kernel devs personal
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:28:37 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends
on
the GPL exports.
What makes it illegal? Quote the text
On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and
reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders
have made it clear that you have no license to do so.
If I distribute a binary kernel module, I'm not
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:14:19 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and
reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders
have made it clear that you have no
Le 2015-08-19 19:14, Michael Orlitzky a écrit :
On 08/19/2015 06:21 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Copyright law makes everything illegal. Downloading the source and
reading it is illegal. Why wouldn't it be illegal? The copyright holders
have made it clear that you have no license to do so.
If I
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 05:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on
the
On 08/19/2015 05:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The illegal part is not loading it but distributing the blob that depends on
the GPL exports.
What makes it illegal? Quote the text of the relevant
Le 2015-08-19 20:04, Michael Orlitzky a écrit :
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com wrote:
They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software
you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is
codified in copyright law.
You don't need a license to use
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it
doesn't work without it?
A is only a derived work of B if the law says it is.
My pot isn't a derived work of my stove. My
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But
we're talking about...
1.
On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with
zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to
disk. You end up with the same number of copies as you were given.
Cite a court case that upholds a claim
Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if it
doesn't work without it?
A is only a derived work of B if the law says it is.
My pot isn't a derived
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:09:59 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The law is not clear about that. But how can it not be a derived work if
it
doesn't work without it?
A is only a derived work of B
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with
zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write it to
disk. You end up with the same number
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have in mind, maybe we are at cross purposes).
Step #1 is illegal unless you
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But
we're talking about...
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
You're receiving a copy of it. You don't need a license to download
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it, it's not on the letter of the law
because it's a technical issue and the law hasn't caught up.
My view, and what I think is most in the spirit of the law, is
Le 2015-08-19 20:48, Michael Orlitzky a écrit :
On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
What's the purpose of these quotes?
Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective
reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too much just read the first
few
On 08/19/2015 09:05 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:14 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
Anything you can do without the kernel source code is legal, sure. But
we're talking about...
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
You're receiving a
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion has been going on ever since the kernel was first
conceived, and some matters are still not entirely clear.
Honestly, I don't think they'll be any consensus on this argument
until a court
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:20:41 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
What's the purpose of these quotes?
Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The GPL symbols are not necessary for interoperability. For that you need
little more that access to the hardware and an interface to userspace. Most of
those GPL symbols are convenience routines to
Michel Catudal wrote:
Le 2015-08-19 20:04, Michael Orlitzky a écrit :
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have in
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:04:01 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 07:40 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
1. Downloading the kernel source (making a copy of) it.
2. Patching it.
3. Linking it with closed source code.
4. Distributing the result.
(If that's not what you have
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 08:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
What's the purpose of these quotes?
Neither of them says it doesn't allow steps 1-3. Instead of doing selective
reading you should read the whole thing. If that's too
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/18/2015 08:39 PM, Dale wrote:
Here's a clue. Why doesn't the kernel devs let users decide what
drivers they are comfy with using? If they don't like the drivers, then
make it so that users have to install their
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Jeremi Piotrowski
jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com wrote:
Companies have frequently been ...
applying their own interpretation of what constitutes derived work.
...
I have nothing against proprietary/closed source kernel modules as long as
they comply with the terms
Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:54:30 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org:
I do get the frustration of the kernel developers. The GPU makers
should be competing on their GPUs, not on their drivers. However,
Linux isn't their main market and forcing the issue is probably just
going to drive
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Dale wrote:
I did some searching based on the config option you gave and I'm unable
to find a way to override this myself. It doesn't seem to be a setting
I can put in make.conf or package.use etc either. If this is the case,
I may wish Nvidia would switch to open
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 09:57:19 AM Marc Joliet wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:54:30 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org:
I do get the frustration of the kernel developers. The GPU makers
should be competing on their GPUs, not on their drivers. However,
Linux isn't their
On 08/19/2015 10:39 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michael Orlitzky m...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 08/19/2015 09:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
When you download software you receive a copy. You start out with
zero works. Somebody sends you a copy of that work. You write
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
Try a different exercise. Go buy a Quran. Now use it as a cryptographic key to
encrypt an email. Is the email now a derived work? That's no a perfect analogy
but it's more like what happens when you
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 10:43:05 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com wrote:
The GPL symbols are not necessary for interoperability. For that you need
little more that access to the hardware and an interface to
On 08/18/2015 09:54 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
I think the kernel devs would be hard-pressed to mount some kind of
GPL infringement lawsuit. In general US courts have tended to block
attempts to use copyright/trademark/patents/etc simply to prevent
interoperability, and that is basically what
On 08/18/2015 08:39 PM, Dale wrote:
Here's a clue. Why doesn't the kernel devs let users decide what
drivers they are comfy with using? If they don't like the drivers, then
make it so that users have to install their own just like we have for
ages but don't disable them or make them not
walt wrote:
entire post severely snipped for brevity
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:53:37 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
walt wrote:
Linus and friends have been marking lots of existing
kernel symbols with the SYMBOL_EXPORT_GPL macro, which was
designed to block the loading of any
walt wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:49:16 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is two issues but you are addressing one of them it
seems. The other issue happens when the kernel panics and it reboots
itself. It doesn't complete the boot process. The one you describe
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:49:16 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
walt wrote:
entire post severely snipped for brevity
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:53:37 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
walt wrote:
Linus and friends have been marking lots of existing
kernel symbols with
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have any info on how to override this, I'd be glad to see it.
Just a link or something would help.
I haven't tested it, but I'd think the simplest solution would be
something like this (which just turns EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
entire post severely snipped for brevity
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 00:53:37 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
walt wrote:
Linus and friends have been marking lots of existing
kernel symbols with the SYMBOL_EXPORT_GPL macro, which was
designed to block the loading of any kernel module
52 matches
Mail list logo
