On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in
> > headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can
> > copy those functions into their proprietary module.
>
> Yes, it does. Have you read
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include
> is not thereby a "derivative work" of the kernel,
> no matter how many entrypoints are labeled EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or
>
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include
linux/whatever.h is not thereby a derivative work of the kernel,
no matter how many entrypoints are labeled
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote:
snip
Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in
headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can
copy those functions into their proprietary module.
Yes, it does. Have you read Lexmark v.
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote:
> > As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates*
> > the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
> > library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states
> > (in
>
> Not that
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
> But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that
> the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk.
>
> - Ted
Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
snip
But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that
the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk.
- Ted
Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote:
As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates*
the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline
library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states
(in
Not that I can see
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer
> > generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their
> > i
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
> shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
> given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
> code is a nice piece
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully
shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have
given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source
code is a nice piece of
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer
generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their
inclusion in the source file
On Thursday 08 February 2007 19:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Most C types don't, and some you can't even tell (do pointers generate
> "signed" or "unsigned" comparisons? I'll argue that a compiler that
> generates signed comparisons for them is broken, but it tends to be
> something you can only
On Thursday 08 February 2007 19:42, Linus Torvalds wrote:
snip
Most C types don't, and some you can't even tell (do pointers generate
signed or unsigned comparisons? I'll argue that a compiler that
generates signed comparisons for them is broken, but it tends to be
something you can only see
On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:28, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
> 27 Oca 2007 Cts tarihinde, Avi Kivity şunları yazmıştı:
> > The patch looks correct, but I don't understand the gcc error message.
> > Are we sure this isn't a gcc 4.2 bug?
> >
> > "g" appears to be equivalent to "rmi", if "i" is
On Saturday 27 January 2007 16:28, S.Çağlar Onur wrote:
27 Oca 2007 Cts tarihinde, Avi Kivity şunları yazmıştı:
The patch looks correct, but I don't understand the gcc error message.
Are we sure this isn't a gcc 4.2 bug?
g appears to be equivalent to rmi, if i is impossible, gcc is free
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 18:24, you wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 05:06:14PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 January 2007 16:56, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 January 2007 21:10, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
>
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 16:56, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 January 2007 21:10, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > > Comparing your report and [1], it seems that if these are the same
> > > > problem, it's not a hardware bug but a gcc or kernel bug.
> > >
> > > This bug
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 16:56, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 21:10, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[snip]
Comparing your report and [1], it seems that if these are the same
problem, it's not a hardware bug but a gcc or kernel bug.
This bug specifically indicates
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 18:24, you wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 05:06:14PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 16:56, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 21:10, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[snip]
Comparing your report and [1], it seems
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 18:39, David R. Meyer wrote:
> I hope it doesn't get me kicked off the list for unnecessary traffic,
> but Happy Birthday Linus. Thanks for making computing fun again
>
> Dave
>
Oh, wow, I totally missed the initial post. Happy Birthday, Linus!
DRH
> Loye
On Wednesday 27 December 2006 18:39, David R. Meyer wrote:
I hope it doesn't get me kicked off the list for unnecessary traffic,
but Happy Birthday Linus. Thanks for making computing fun again
Dave
Oh, wow, I totally missed the initial post. Happy Birthday, Linus!
DRH
Loye Young
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 20:48, tony mancill wrote:
> FWIW, using pci=noacpi seems to break the USB controller on this laptop.
> I get "device not accepting address xx, error -110.
Strange. I'm using an Acer Aspire 1640Z and the sound works perfectly. Of
course Kubuntu was the only distro I
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 20:48, tony mancill wrote:
FWIW, using pci=noacpi seems to break the USB controller on this laptop.
I get device not accepting address xx, error -110.
Strange. I'm using an Acer Aspire 1640Z and the sound works perfectly. Of
course Kubuntu was the only distro I
On Monday 18 December 2006 12:16, David Schwartz wrote:
> Combined responses to save bandwidth and reduce the number of times people
> have to press "d".
>
> > Agreed. You missed the point.
>
> I don't understand how you could lead with "agreed" and then proceed to
> completely ignore the entire
On Monday 18 December 2006 20:35, David Schwartz wrote:
> > For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an
> > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not
> > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere
> > aggregation" paragraph
On Monday 18 December 2006 14:41, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license-
> > compatible, are certainly not derivative works.
>
> Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just
On Monday 18 December 2006 10:47, Dave Neuer wrote:
> On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
> > > > Linux.
On Monday 18 December 2006 10:47, Dave Neuer wrote:
On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote:
I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to
Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics
On Monday 18 December 2006 14:41, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license-
compatible, are certainly not derivative works.
Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just like a big
On Monday 18 December 2006 20:35, David Schwartz wrote:
For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an
aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not
the output is a work based on the program, and whether the mere
aggregation paragraph kicks in.
On Monday 18 December 2006 12:16, David Schwartz wrote:
Combined responses to save bandwidth and reduce the number of times people
have to press d.
Agreed. You missed the point.
I don't understand how you could lead with agreed and then proceed to
completely ignore the entire point I just
"Usermode Driver" interface that is being worked on ever proves
useful then, and only then, could you consider it *NOT* a derivative work.
Because then the only thing it is using *IS* an interface, not complete
chunks of the source as generated when the pre-processor finishes running
through
, not complete
chunks of the source as generated when the pre-processor finishes running
through the file.
But as David said - IANAL
D. Hazelton
-
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
On Sunday 26 November 2006 17:19, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On 11/27/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:18:41 +0100
> >
> > Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The mode switch sequences for modern cards are a bit more hairy than
> > > > lists of I/O poking
On Sunday 26 November 2006 17:19, Dave Airlie wrote:
On 11/27/06, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:18:41 +0100
Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mode switch sequences for modern cards are a bit more hairy than
lists of I/O poking unfortunately.
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 23:25, Lu, Yinghai wrote:
> I think the root cause in hda_intel driver's self.
>
> It gets io-apic irq initialized at first, and it will use
> azx_acquire_irq to install handler after check if MSI can be enabled.
> And when it try to enable the MSI, that will start
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 23:25, Lu, Yinghai wrote:
I think the root cause in hda_intel driver's self.
It gets io-apic irq initialized at first, and it will use
azx_acquire_irq to install handler after check if MSI can be enabled.
And when it try to enable the MSI, that will start the int
On Saturday 03 September 2005 02:14, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 13:18 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:21:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which
On Saturday 03 September 2005 02:14, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 13:18 +0800, David Teigland wrote:
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:21:04PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which
OCFS2
On Monday 15 August 2005 08:22, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Can you reproduce the crash reliably?
> Can you reproduce the crash with a non-tainted kernel?
I've tried several times now to reproduce the oops, but there might have been
another factor that led to the oops, because just booting the kernel
On Monday 15 August 2005 08:22, Jesper Juhl wrote:
Can you reproduce the crash reliably?
Can you reproduce the crash with a non-tainted kernel?
I've tried several times now to reproduce the oops, but there might have been
another factor that led to the oops, because just booting the kernel and
42 matches
Mail list logo
