mem_, bwlq, type)
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(, bwlq, type, USE_IO_BARRIER_FOR_NON_MEM_OUT) \
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(__mem_, bwlq, type, 2)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(b, u8)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(w, u16)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter he/him https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! F
n !barrier, but you already knew that.
Did you mean to ask what war_io_reorder_wmb expand to, or whether there
are other uses of war_io_reorder_wmb, or what?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain Engin
On Mar 7, 2019, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:41:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2019, "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
>>
>> > Is there an MMIO completion barrier missing there somewhere by any chance
>> >
OPORT_PFX(, bwlq, type, 0) \
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(__mem_, bwlq, type, 1)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(b, u8)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(w, u16)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain Engineer
s there, but I haven't checked whether it was
there before the patch.
Do you suggest any way to tell whether it had the intended effect?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain Engineer
for 24 hours non-stop, but... I'm curious as to what
obstacles you ran into. It's such a reproducible problem for me that I
can't see how bisecting it might be difficult.
Or were by any chance you talking about the reboot/shutdown problem
then?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.o
Do you happen to know how
far back it might be needed?
> I'll continue working on upstreaming these out-of-tree drivers as my personal
> project. I hope you'll be able to use a fully-functional machine with the
> mainline
> kernel soon, my current target is Linux 5.3.
Thanks!
--
Alex
. Thanks.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain EngineerFree Software Evangelist
Hay que enGNUrecerse, pero sin perder la terGNUra jamás-GNUChe
ng, printing
> even a single line on the console is required a full screen redraw via memory-
That doesn't seem to explain even a quiet boot up taking several times
longer than 4.19, and package installation over an ethernet connection
(thus not using the console) also taking several times longer.
--
Alex
On Feb 8, 2019, Tom Li wrote:
> found Alexandre Oliva has stopped maintaining his tree
?!?
I still merge and tag every one of Torvalds' and Greg KH's releases into
the loongson-community tree, resolving trivial conflicts and trying to
verify that it at least builds and passes a smoke t
On Apr 3, 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 April 2014 18:10, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> FWIW, the same mistake is present in at32.
> I will check others as well now :)
Thanks!
>> Reverting all the changes to loongson2_cpufreq.c in 652ed95d5fa makes
>> cpufre
On Apr 3, 2014, Viresh Kumar viresh.ku...@linaro.org wrote:
On 3 April 2014 18:10, Alexandre Oliva ol...@gnu.org wrote:
FWIW, the same mistake is present in at32.
I will check others as well now :)
Thanks!
Reverting all the changes to loongson2_cpufreq.c in 652ed95d5fa makes
cpufreq work
info's output, and freezing shortly thereafter.
> - static struct clk *cpuclk;
> + struct clk *cpuclk;
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America
in
cpufreq-info's output, and freezing shortly thereafter.
- static struct clk *cpuclk;
+ struct clk *cpuclk;
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin
s
>> might face other problems when presented with Loongson2-specific icache
>> flush code too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
>> a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva
>Fix
CPUs
might face other problems when presented with Loongson2-specific icache
flush code too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva lxol...@fsfla.org
Fix for this issue has
too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva
---
arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips/mm/c
too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva lxol...@fsfla.org
---
arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b
.0.
The shorter cycle towards 3.20, which would make the 2 cycles towards
4.0 shorter than two usual cycles, may help relieve some of the pressure
to get features into 3.19, since the merge window for 4.0 won't be that
far off.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You
.
The shorter cycle towards 3.20, which would make the 2 cycles towards
4.0 shorter than two usual cycles, may help relieve some of the pressure
to get features into 3.19, since the merge window for 4.0 won't be that
far off.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You
from the various
well-known blobs within the firmware/ subtree and the assorted
blobs-disguised-as-sources that still often pop up in drivers/staging?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http
from the various
well-known blobs within the firmware/ subtree and the assorted
blobs-disguised-as-sources that still often pop up in drivers/staging?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
>> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy
gt; property rights
How do you reason about binary-only software fulfilling the goal of
copyright? How does it deliver its part of the copyright deal with
society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create
derived works from it because the source code remains
it deliver its part of the copyright deal with
society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create
derived works from it because the source code remains unavailable?
http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva write:
>> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
>> > whether it
>> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The general
On Jun 28, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva write:
The GPL does sometimes use the word may where it's not clear
whether it
means you have permission or you must be able to. The general rule of
construction is that may means permission, unless there's some
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
> download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
> obtain t
m of copyright enfrocement. The "further
> restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights*
> (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law,
> namely the right of distribution and copying).
... and modification and, depending
efrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because the machine opted not to get them.
Now, the user can't distribute the binaries, because doing so without
being able to get the sources to pass them on would be copyrigh
the sources to pass them on would be copyright
infringement. Would a court see this as a restriction on distribution
imposed by the distributor? Or by the copyright holder?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
to you under copyright law,
namely the right of distribution and copying).
... and modification and, depending on the jurisdiction, execution.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because
that software, there's no way the GPL can stop you from
imposing whatever restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you
choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just
in case their downstream users might become your next target.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.l
ing or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.
--
Alexa
to modify every single copy of the program that is
> distributed to you.
No, it only means that the distributor must not impose restrictions on
my ability to modify those copies. The copyright holder says I can.
Both nature and distributor might have means to stop me from doing it.
Copyright holder can
On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
>> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
>> behind a barrier you cannot
and install it.
- Sources are behind network authentication, as above, so although
your device receives them, you can't get to them because they're in
the encrypted disk.
Does it seem to you that GPLv2 blocks any of these means to distribute
your code without granting its users access to the
network authentication, as above, so although
your device receives them, you can't get to them because they're in
the encrypted disk.
Does it seem to you that GPLv2 blocks any of these means to distribute
your code without granting its users access to the source code?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 27, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva writes:
Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
behind a barrier you cannot trespass. This is not different from
shipping
can't override nature, but it can override the
distributor.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org
to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or object form.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF
restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you
choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just
in case their downstream users might become your next target.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
eone from obtaining them
Back when GPLv2 was written, it really was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva:
>> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
>> > mean: not directly; i.e. the
u *can* point at the sources you used, even in a
site that you don't control.
However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva
nts in GPLv3.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
>> and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
>> the
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
>> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
>> the
d was
permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.
the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
theoretically accessible using the shipped
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
they distribute.
We don't oppose that you do
.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
* point at the sources you used, even in a
site that you don't control.
However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http
On Jun 26, 2007, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva:
On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party
download link.
This has never been
was written, it really was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
>> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
> Just b
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
Just because someone has
nses
would apply. But IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
er it even makes sense for me to champion
this suggestion towards inclusion in GPLv3.
> at times where one could wonder if he was really sent by Tivo to
> make sure the kernel would stay GPLv2. :-)
:-) Dammit, how did you guess? :-) I even tried to disguise it by
insisting that GPLv2
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
>> licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
&g
ore-informed decisions.
Thanks for listening.
o-o
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
.
Thanks for listening.
o-o
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
that's all noise out
sent by Tivo to
make sure the kernel would stay GPLv2. :-)
:-) Dammit, how did you guess? :-) I even tried to disguise it by
insisting that GPLv2 already prohibits this practice! :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http
interpretation upon other authors. Under copyright, it's the more
restrictive reading that prevails, in that any holder who understands
his rights are being trampled can enforce them. And since at least
one such author is vocal in his dissent, not even estoppel defenses
would apply. But IANAL.
--
Alexandre
, and with
GPLv3 plus (potential built-in?) permission to combine with v2. I can
see that it boggles the minds not used to this kind of combination.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engine
code sharing world
> by fragmenting the licence landscape even more.
I take it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
undesirable. Well, then, what can I say? I tried. :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
>> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
>>
On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
> So you really didn't pay any attention to anything people told you?
Yes. Particu
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
>>> disagree with you.
>>
>> For the
/354
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/117
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/432
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
>> unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
>> sup
r that company.
Indeed, compiler engineers are often the bearers of company's voices.
Not!
> I'm simply replying to you that indeed it is not clear for whom you
> speak with all that info in your signature and the email address you
> post from.
Understood. Thanks for doing that so nicely.
I'm gl
;no further restrictions" clear enough?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
>>> opinion that GPLv3 potentially s
in order to be able to
combine two copyleft licenses, you need mutual compatibility
provisions in both. Which is what I was proposing.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTE
. And what's
more, I could still use your code in my GPLv2 projects, and enforce
that against tivoizers, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.
So what exactly are you trying to accomplish by pretending that mutual
compatibility with GPLv3 would set you back in any way?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
>> network by only listening in, can you?
> Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something that
>
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of t
ception to be compatible with the apache license
For the record, it doesn't, GPLv3 is going to be compatible with the
apache 2.0 license, no additional exceptions needed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
R
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
>> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
>> compatibility) introduced an
file cannot take it back,
whereas the verification of unsigned software is just a warning, that
you can often bypass by telling the software to go ahead and install
it regardless of signatures.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http:
t's a lot about making sure no one can acquire a
privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
> I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br
rovide some code for it to isntall (which has to be signed in a way
> the hardware likes), then the hardware has nothing to do with the
> license of the software.
Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn't it?
> I hope no one does this, but I still don't see how the GPLv3 draft de
chance file them against an earlier draft? Those (for
obvious reasons) no longer appear against the current draft, but
they're still accessible by other means.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red
ut to a cryptographical algorithm, and a signature is
an output. I could try to come up with more creative definitions, but
you get the idea already.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
>>> certified,
>>
>> In this case you m
, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Soft
it worth it this time.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
ftware.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
ps
> binary kernel modules.
Only copyright holders of Linux can go after them on matters of kernel
drivers. Or is this driver derived from any software copyrighted by
myself? Or did you mean the FSF, with whom I'm not associated in any
way other than ideologically?
--
Alexand
en you say they have a right to do)
as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
this regard, don't you agree?
--
Alexandre Oliva
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
>>> the signature is completely independant.
>
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
the signature is completely independant.
Well, then remove or otherwise mangle
)
as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
this regard, don't you agree?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva
1 - 100 of 718 matches
Mail list logo
