Can E. Acar wrote:
There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own
community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) all perhaps used your
Regarding Linux Kernel developers, false. _I_ have posted. ath5k,
wireless, and net driver maintainers have all sent emails. License and
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over
patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as
fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)
times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:17:53AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
The most
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and
JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
*explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
You can choose under which license you would like to receive the right to
modify or distribute the code. But you cannot change the license that code
itself is
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
You can choose under which license you would like to receive the right to
modify or
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have moral duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which is _exactly_ what you guys are
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have moral duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code,
but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux
evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic behind this.
please explain it.
There are two highly relevant angles to
Adrian Bunk writes:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you
can choose
the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
You can choose under which license you would like to receive
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
...
Again, one more time:
1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD license notice.
...
I hope noone believes this bullshit you are spreading.
When you incorporate BSD licenced code into a GPL'ed project it's
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
In responses and posts, there is over and over a huge confusion
between two completely different issues. One is about whether you
can modify licenses, the other is about whether you can modify
license *notices*.
Again, one more
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
...
Again, one more time:
1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD
license notice.
...
I hope noone believes this bullshit you are spreading.
How do you figure?
When you incorporate BSD licenced
Theodore Tso wrote:
Essentially, I agree with you. My only disagremeent with you is that I think
the problem starts sooner:
However, consider a file which was originally BSD licensed. Now
suppose it is modified (i.e., a derived work was created) and another
author slaps on a BSD/GPL dual
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:19:14PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
...
Now, in the case of the Atheros wireless code, the original author
(Sam Leffler) has stated that as far as *his* code was concerned, he
was willing to dual license it. However, in this case, he agreed to
have the code
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 06:35:12PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
...
Again, one more time:
1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD
license notice.
...
I hope noone believes this bullshit
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
IIRC, the advice was Yes, it is legal to choose to follow
Can E. Acar wrote:
Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from
Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and
*BSD.
Hardly. It is software; the interface most definitely can and will change.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
You did say otherwise.
Your claim was that You can obtain, *from the GPL*, the right to remove
a BSD license notice.
This claim is bullshit.
No, it's not.
You can get this right from the copyright holder, e.g. when he
dual-licenced his code, but you can not get this right from the
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
> It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
> installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
> are quickly eroding away. The rights and recognition of one of our
> own developers (reyk@) have been
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:33:18AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
thank you. I've tried but I get too pissed.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:33:18AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
the clearest public analysis of the situation yet
thank you. I've tried but I get too pissed.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
are quickly eroding away. The rights and recognition of one of our
own developers (reyk@) have been
201 - 230 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
