On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
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
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
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
(
ie. system memory).
The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under the GPL, thus making
them undistributable by the selfsame definition of the GPL.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
possible.
From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
The
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
problems for the users.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
You have lots of possible legal problems of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
time.
is not granted or denied because of functionality.
The functional issues are relevant only because they're written into
the license.
Of course there can be other GPL issues (e.g. it's bad to put a GPL
notice on something which isn't GPLed).
And, of course, there can be non-GPL issues (pulling the blobs out
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
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
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
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,
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a court.
If Debian was at least consistent.
Why has Debian a much more
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
but to a
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a crit :
Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operation.
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
Assuming you have an online connection and a friend told
I think the derivative work angle is a red herring. I do not think
that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
subject to the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
> file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already d
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[quoting me]
>> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
>> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
>> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
> Would you
> > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
> > but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
is a derivative
work.
I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTEC
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
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 isn't going to give their designs away.
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.
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware, and
> not MICROcode. If somebody has decided to rename FIRMware to
> SOFTware,
Debian has undertaken to change the meaning of a whole lot of words,
including "software" and "free".
>
> "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
to rename FIRMware to
SOFTware, then they need to complete the task and call it DORKware,
named after themselves.
This whole thread and gotten truly bizarre.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review b
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
> simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
> fine.
Then I would
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 consider the
intermixing of firmware bytes with kernel binary image bytes
Hi Jes, long time without hearing about you :)
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Sven> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven
> Sven> wrote:
>
> Sven> Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be
> Sven> taken off ? I suppose
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik 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 disabled.
>
> TSO firmware is commonly used
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a Ãcrit :
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> >
> > > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > > code
> >
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
>
> > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > code
> > for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
cases the
linker provides one work direct access to the other.
If you only distribute the source to the driver and don't put a GPL
notice
in the files that contain the firmware data, I think you're okay. I think
you're asking for trouble if you distribute a combined compiled/linked
driver.
DS
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> code
> for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which is
> mentioned in acenic_firmware.h) since - as far as I know - firmware
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon
> under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
> the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
> under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jeff> 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
> "Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> 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.
Matthew> Actually, there are some legitimate problems
> "Sven" == Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sven> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven
Sven> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:09 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>>
>> please take this discussion elsewhere. Also please never cc three
>> such
Sven> Ok, can you please
Sven == Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sven On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven
Sven wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:09 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
please take this discussion elsewhere. Also please never cc three
such
Sven Ok, can you please point to me where
Matthew == Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew 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.
Matthew Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of
Jeff == Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeff 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 have the
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon
under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my right
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
distribute the source to the driver and don't put a GPL
notice
in the files that contain the firmware data, I think you're okay. I think
you're asking for trouble if you distribute a combined compiled/linked
driver.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a crit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which is
mentioned in acenic_firmware.h) since - as far as I know - firmware is
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
is
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a crit :
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a crit :
Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
code
for the firmware
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik 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 disabled.
TSO firmware is commonly used these days.
Hi Jes, long time without hearing about you :)
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Sven On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven
Sven wrote:
Sven Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be
Sven taken off ? I suppose you mean
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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
object file as mere aggregation.
If you only distribute the source to the driver and don't put
a GPL notice in the files that contain the firmware data, I
think you're okay. I think you're asking for trouble if you
distribute a combined compiled/linked driver.
Disagreed.
DS
HTH,
Massa
-
To unsubscribe
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
fine.
Then I would
FIRMware to
SOFTware, then they need to complete the task and call it DORKware,
named after themselves.
This whole thread and gotten truly bizarre.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.11 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator
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
Richard B. Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware, and
not MICROcode. If somebody has decided to rename FIRMware to
SOFTware,
Debian has undertaken to change the meaning of a whole lot of words,
including software and free.
This whole
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
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
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 isn't going to give their designs away.
I
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
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 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 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
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
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 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 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 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?
that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
DS
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
in
Also, mere aggregation is a term from the GPL. You can read what
it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Scripsit David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[quoting me]
No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
than in the situation that the GPL discribes as mere aggregation.
Would you maintain this
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already decided
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
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >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 case for a binary kernel module, from which
> >you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:28:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> * Most firmwares are a -collection- of images and data. The firmware
> infrastructure should load an -archive- of firmwares and associated data
> values.
Why don't you use multiple firmware loading calls with different
names?
On Tue, 5 April 2005 15:28:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> * Firmwares such as tg3 should be shipped with the kernel tarball.
As in /usr/src/linux/firmware/tg3.tar? Would be a simple patch to add
that one.
Jörn
--
The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software
than
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
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 case for a binary kernel module, from which
> > you cannot
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 case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily
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 Tue, 5 April 2005 15:28:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
* Firmwares such as tg3 should be shipped with the kernel tarball.
As in /usr/src/linux/firmware/tg3.tar? Would be a simple patch to add
that one.
Jörn
--
The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software
than
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:28:01PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
* Most firmwares are a -collection- of images and data. The firmware
infrastructure should load an -archive- of firmwares and associated data
values.
Why don't you use multiple firmware loading calls with different
names? Maybe
Josselin Mouette wrote:
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 case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
On Tue,
601 - 700 of 862 matches
Mail list logo
