dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] > I doubt any distribution but the FSF "purified" Debian (the one that has > no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG "purified" Debian[1], please. [1] -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > > perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, > but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? > Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') > would be a

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 > Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them >> for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official >> tree. I know just from monitoring this list that

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > > > So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting > > > > around, if that's what we actually want to do. > > > > > > Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, > > > talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagge

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them > for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official > tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would neve

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing > these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to > play in the "Grey Area", then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers > are already difficult and expensive for the compa

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been set.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] > > Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system > > rating. > OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older > boxen with strange gear == gear for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist let

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: > Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ "Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion: www.deutschlandse

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people > > > > distributing the infringing software for 1 Eur

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > > And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't > > matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have > > no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more > along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of > manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source > drivers for the device

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little > > multi-platform utility. It would

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware specifications are available. It's not about driver a

Re: Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote: blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Li

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: > Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to > allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware > specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the > hardware specificati

Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote: > > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, > nor is > > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. > > As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. > Information wants to be free

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this > Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it. > However, that's > not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you > put in? Do you use: > a) the *default* graphics card > b) the on

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? > > It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of > > your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would > > have no objection to also requir

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote: >Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> FWIW: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? >> ret = pciids_to_names(data) >> File

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids' > > That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and upd

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > FWIW: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? > ret = pciids_to_names(data) > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 11, in pciids_to_names > pci

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote: >El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: >> I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize >> the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness >> matrix sit

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the > current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix > site? I've a script (attached) that looks into /lib/modules

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :) I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to util

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able to do something) _nor_ a legal issue. So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually do

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all > touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the > GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be > made. .. and then what does that mean?

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote: > I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more > restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently > the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works, > enforce distribution of sour

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's > what copyright law defines. Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work. > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disast

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into legal theory: Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible license are inconsiderate and rude. ?? Please don't be rude. ??? J Eric - To unsubscribe from

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into legal theory: Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible license are inconsiderate and rude. Please don't be rude. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the bo

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of > people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time. > I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways > that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a > loose ba

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > [...] > >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that > > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but so

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if > > > done properly (and I think we use i

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday, 17 December 2006 11:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough > > > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and > > > buy some hardware labelled "runs under

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100 > >> >Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote: > >> > > >> >You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in r

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough > > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and > > buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's > > with a Windows driver running u

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:22:12AM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote: > OK, let assume your perspective of the history is the valid and real one, > then, ¿where are all lawsits against other big GPL only projects? For example > libqt/kdelibs. You can hardly provide any example where the GPL wasn't hold

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:56:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a > company that is often located in a different country, and the only > possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people > who are infr

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:33:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually us

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote: > > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never > > tried to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to > > "distibution" of the covered program. The freedom

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is > > to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says, > > I can consid

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote: > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never tried > to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to "distibution" of the > covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: "right to use the program > for any purp

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is > to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says, > I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at > the sa

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > possible

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized > that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and ^ > that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work" ... > I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison, > because I think that you (as the "author") are in the type of authors > you describe below : > > > Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use. Sure. Sa

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/15/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. Information wants to be free, the natural

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Theodore Tso wrote: > P.S. For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the > MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this. > (Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as "news". http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility > > between the author's intent and the user's intent. > > No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we > can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support > them somehow. Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty clear

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility > > between the author's intent and the user's intent. > > That is NOT TRUE. If the author's in

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility > between the author's intent and the user's intent. No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent and the users intent. In other words, "fair use" k

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: [...] >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to > support them somehow. > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility > between the author's intent and the user's intent. That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is that anyone who is using a TV with a screen larger than 29" and

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Dec

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > > > > > As it stands, I believe the li

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose > > > certain restrictions and come with ce

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose > > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations > > Absolutely. And they boil down to something very

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

From: "Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. Information wants to be free, the natural efficient eco

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose > certain restrictions and come with certain obligations Absolutely. And they boil down to something very simple: "Derived works have to be under the same license" where the re

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Re :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 16:24 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > > > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to > > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. > > I don't care what you're for, or what your imagi

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Alan wrote: > > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is > > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. > > As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. > Information wants to be free, the natural

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. Information wants to be free, the natural efficient economic state of information is gen

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > If the "free software community" has the clout to twist vendor's arms to > get them release driver source, then I'm all for it. I don't care what you're for, or what your imaginary "free software community" is for. We're "open source", and we're not a

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi :o) Linus Torvalds wrote : > The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the > exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell > people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the > DMCA is bad because it puts technical limit

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/14/06, Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT DOES to create incompatibilities DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE. All someone has to do or say is. "... I did not ever accept the GPL license w

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:08:11 -0800 "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That is something that I think is well worth fixing. Doesn't Linus own the > trademark 'Linux'? How about some rules for use of that trademark and a > 'Works with Linux' logo that can only be used if the hardware s

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

#include * Jeff V. Merkey [Thu, Dec 14 2006, 12:34:52PM]: > > This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT > DOES to create incompatibilities Just my 0.02€ - one of the things I wonder about is why eg. class* interfaces has been replaced with something "protected" by

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:39, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > > It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be > > > supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team > > > only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the > > > kernel on

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> > It'll get in when the developers feel it is at a stage where it can be > supported, at the moment (I'm not speaking for all the nouveau team > only my own opinion) the API isn't stable and putting it into the > kernel only means we've declared the API supportable, I know in theory > marking it

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 23:21, Dave Airlie wrote: > On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alan wrote: > > > Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open > > > drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the > > > kernel ASAP for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/15/06, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alan wrote: > Another thing we should do more is aggressively merge prototype open > drivers for binary only hardware - lets get Nouveau's DRM bits into the > kernel ASAP for example. ACK++ We should definitely push Nouveau[1] as hard as we ca

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:26:26PM +, Alan wrote: > > Think of uio as just a "class" of driver, like input or v4l. It's still > > up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the > > hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all. > > Understood. That leads m

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 20:29 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote: > > You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like > > bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers. > > There's no binary-only driver for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thursday 14 December 2006 15:12, Ben Collins wrote: > You can't talk about drivers that don't exist for Linux. Things like > bcm43xx aren't effected by this new restriction for GPL-only drivers. > There's no binary-only driver for it (ndiswrapper doesn't count). If the > hardware vendor doesn't

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and > buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's > with a Windows driver running under ndiswrapper... That is something that I thin

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

mber 14, 2006 11:43 AM > To: Chris Wedgwood > Cc: Eric Sandeen; Christoph Hellwig; Linus Torvalds; Jeff > Garzik; Greg KH; Jonathan Corbet; Andrew Morton; Martin > Bligh; Michael K. Edwards; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

This whole effort is pointless. This is the same kind of crap MICROSOFT DOES to create incompatibilities DELIBERATELY. The code is either FREE or its NOT FREE.If the code is FREE then let it be. You can put whatever you want in the code -- I will remove any such constructs, just like I

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people > > > distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay. > > > > Doesn't that sound even more like

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/14/06, Chris Wedgwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite > convey what it means, either. Calling i

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Rik van Riel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > Maybe we should just educate users and teach them to > avoid crazy unsupportable configurations and simply buy > the hardware that has open drivers available? Educating the users may help, but it's hard to do the education once they've already bought the h

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote: > > Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing? Well, I'm not sure the _INTERNAL name is all that much better than the _GPL one. In many ways, the _GPL one describes the _effects_ better, and also points out the reason _why_ something is marked

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED. No. That's really a purely technical thing. I'm not certain I understand what you mean here. Nasty messages using the word "taint" is purely subjective.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:15:20PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Please don't use that name, it strikes me as much more confusing > than EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL, even though I agree that _GPL doesn't quite > convey what it means, either. Calling internal symbols _INTERNAL is confusing? > EXPORT_SYMBOL_

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > Yeah, like that one. WITH THE POLITICAL AGENDA CODE REMOVED. No. That's really a purely technical thing. You can still do whatever you want, but people who support the resulting mess know that they shouldn't. Linus - To unsubscri

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Martin J. Bligh wrote: Jeff V. Merkey wrote: Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly as Linus describes, and legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of affected kernel code (albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a "skele

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense. > >A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating >nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be p

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> Think of uio as just a "class" of driver, like input or v4l. It's still > up to the driver writer to provide a proper bus interface to the > hardware (pci, usb, etc.) in order for the device to work at all. Understood. That leads me to ask another question of the folks who deal with a lot of th

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Chris Wedgwood wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense. > > A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating > nearly 1900 instances, so patches to do this would be pretty large and >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> One of the things that I find so interesting about how rabid people > get about enforcing GPL-only modules is how they start acting more and > more like the RIAA, MPAA, and Microsoft every day There is a saying "That which you fight you become" It's a warning that is well worth hee

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Jeff V. Merkey wrote: Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly as Linus describes, and legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of affected kernel code (albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a "skeleton driver") and our prop

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Again, I agree with EVERY statement Linus made here. We operate exactly as Linus describes, and legally, NO ONE can take us to task on GPL issues. We post patches of affected kernel code (albiet the code resembles what Linus describes as a "skeleton driver") and our proprietary non derived cod

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:21 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Dec 14 2006 08:46, Ben Collins wrote: > >I have to agree with your your whole statement. The gradual changes to > >lock down kernel modules to a particular license(s) tends to mirror the > >slow lock down of content (music/movies) that p

  1   2   >