On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:39:05PM +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> The first try to send the message below didn't work. Hoping it does
> now ... :)
>
> Regards
> Wolfgang
>
> - Forwarded message from Wolfgang Pfeiifer -
>
> To: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PR
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:39:05PM +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
The first try to send the message below didn't work. Hoping it does
now ... :)
Regards
Wolfgang
- Forwarded message from Wolfgang Pfeiifer -
To: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
ize that any author can publish his work in the form he
> likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in
> that.
I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case
though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by n
expectation. I see no danger in
that.
I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case
though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL itself is by no
means free software.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
it doesn't do so ?
> >>
> >>Sorry, this is nonsense. D is well willing to distribute the source.
> >>In this case, he _is_ distributing what A publicly stated to be the
> >>source.
> >
> >Yep, apart from the fact that A never did publicly state such issue, but
nd add SA_SHIRQ in
> there as the interrupt is shared if I understand things correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, it originated by me/you/dale, but i think it is trivia
say that once he released it
> under GPL, he can't take it back.
But the GPL states that we must be able to distribute the sources, clearly
defines what said sources are, and states what happens if you can't fullfill
a clause of the GPL -> no right to distribute at all.
> >
> >I am not sure. If i where to get a copy of windows, and manage to install
> >it
> >without clicking on the "i agree" button, does that make it a legal copy of
> >windows to use ?
>
> Come on, please, do not mix things up. I've said GPL'ed software. Last time
> I checked, Windows was not GPL'ed (yet). :-)
What has the GPL to do with it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
GPL'ed software. Last time
I checked, Windows was not GPL'ed (yet). :-)
What has the GPL to do with it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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
in
there as the interrupt is shared if I understand things correctly.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, it originated by me/you/dale, but i think it is trivial stuff anyway.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from
to the kernel binary.
If you distribute the result, you have to distribute the source _as
you received it_. That's all. If you do, you're fine.
And where did those hexstrings come from ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
icense will
> not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in
> full compliance.
Yeah, but who know what mad laws will be passed to repress piracy which will
make this void.
> Note also that GPL says nothing about how you get your copy. You can
> get it while hanging
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
> threading somehow.]
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
> are
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
ones handling the infrastructure
clicking on the i agree button, does that make it a legal copy of
windows to use ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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
ance is that the kernel proper
> and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage (
> 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,
sing executable, or the firmware from
the firmware flasher in a all-in-one firmware upgrade binary.
> At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if
> the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license.
Indeed, the sole problem is that the current copyrig
n of the firmware and hence the
> source code under the GPL."
I strongly disagree. This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that
whatever binary is the prefered form of modification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke
t apply.
>
> In particular, the end of GPL #2 does not provide a blanket exception
> for all forms of aggregation; it specifically speaks about aggregation
> "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the same
co
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".
So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take
indows
installation CD, or for that matter to duplicate music CDs ?
I would be rather interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED
mware as being a derivative
work, you should consider it a derivative work also when it is flashed on the
prom of a pci card or what not, is decisive enough to make those firmware
blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: s
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 must take more care regarding
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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
> > > modific
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
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
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 must take more care regarding
legal risks than commercial
firmware
blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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
in the situation that the GPL discribes as mere aggregation.
So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take it to
debian-legal alone, ok ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More
and hence the
source code under the GPL.
I strongly disagree. This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that
whatever binary is the prefered form of modification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
on a volume of a storage or distribution medium.
Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the same
copy of the firmware as a derived work if shipped on a prom on the device
itself.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
came to that conclusion :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
firmware upgrade binary.
At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if
the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license.
Indeed, the sole problem is that the current copyright and licencing
attributions de-facto sets those firmware blobs under the GPL, which
(
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
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 mo
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
> &
else, we
are also doing the work needed to solve the issue with upstream, see :
http://wiki.debian.net/?KernelFirmwareLicensing
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ma
e 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.
>
> I am fairly certain in that case the firmware came from the bcm5701
> broadcom driver for the tg3 which I think is gpl'd. So
the issue with upstream, see :
http://wiki.debian.net/?KernelFirmwareLicensing
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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 firmware came from the bcm5701
broadcom driver for the tg3 which I think is gpl'd. So the firmware
may legitimately be under the GPL.
So, where is the source for it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
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
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 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 di
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
parts.
Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody
really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those
firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly
identified and properly licenced, which they are not always.
L
und are totally
irelevant, since we reached consensus on debian-legal in marsh that they
constitute mere agregation, where either the file or the elf binary are just
the distribution media.
And those binary blobs currently come under the GPL or are not licenced at
all, so taking them out
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
>
d,
0xd, 0x3c1d0001, 0x37bde000, 0x3a0f021,
0x3c11, 0x2610, 0xc004010, 0x0,
...
It is specially ironic to see the GPL advertizement and the firmware binary
words together :)
Will contact their driver support team, and see what it gives.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this
be enough.
Or even adding some comment in the toplevel COPYING file saying that firmware
blobs come under their own licence or something such, and then listing all the
firmware blobs and their licencing condition in a separate toplevel file would
be enough.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsu
rms of a legally predative company and pulling another SCO at us.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
I don't believe there is already
support for a second ramdisk in todays kernel.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
it should not
matter, and only the original checkin you did is the one we need to account
for.
I understand this is bothersome to everyone, but the code base will be a
cleaner one once we solve this issue, don't you think ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line &q
statements/exemptions/something to the binary blobs where they are now.
Yes, indeed, i am searching for a short-time clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.
That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs and clarify th
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
>
and properly licenced, which they are not always.
Let's take this to debian-legal only if you want to further discuss it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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 Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly
not
matter, and only the original checkin you did is the one we need to account
for.
I understand this is bothersome to everyone, but the code base will be a
cleaner one once we solve this issue, don't you think ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux
clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.
That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs and clarify their
copyright/licencing situation is common for both alternatives.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from
,
Sven Luther
-
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/
yourself what the above mentioned companies where to do
if they where to be made aware of the issue, and ask their lawyers to attend
this. Also you have to consider the case of some of those companies ending in
the arms of a legally predative company and pulling another SCO at us.
Friendly,
Sven
licence or something such, and then listing all the
firmware blobs and their licencing condition in a separate toplevel file would
be enough.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo
, 0x37bde000, 0x3a0f021,
0x3c11, 0x2610, 0xc004010, 0x0,
...
It is specially ironic to see the GPL advertizement and the firmware binary
words together :)
Will contact their driver support team, and see what it gives.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
GPL, so why not say it explicitly
the distribution media.
And those binary blobs currently come under the GPL or are not licenced at
all, so taking them out of the kernel doesn't make them distributable in any
way.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
&
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
> is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
> file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it f
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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_f
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On M
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> > that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually
as found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Mmm,
e messed beyond recognition in this anyway, but they are
freezed so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html
>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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
> > > prob
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
> > audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
> >
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
> > audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
> >
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:26:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs,
> > and
> > to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licenc
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:09 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> please take this discussion elsewhere. Also please never cc three such
Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be taken off ? I
suppose you
legalese issues nobody is really
fond of,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:09 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
please take this discussion elsewhere. Also please never cc three such
Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be taken off ? I
suppose you mean LKML
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:26:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
Sven Luther writes:
Hello,
quick sumary
Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs,
and
to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence statement from the
copyright holders of said
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
technicality to get out
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
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
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html
Can you summarize the conclusion
, but they are
freezed so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
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/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about
statement added, saying that it is not covered by the
GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being
distributed.
Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
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
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
GPLed
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
http://lists.debian.org/debian
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:39:45AM +0100, Christian wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Some backports that i got from the list. The complete list of patches is
> >at :
> >
> >
> > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.8-2.6.8/
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Christian wrote:
> On Fri, February 25, 2005 7:36, Sven Luther said:
> > So, now, we need to find out what the problems where, i think it is
> > something that went in between 2.6.8 and 2.6.10, and leigh said he had
> > some ideas
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Christian wrote:
On Fri, February 25, 2005 7:36, Sven Luther said:
So, now, we need to find out what the problems where, i think it is
something that went in between 2.6.8 and 2.6.10, and leigh said he had
some ideas.
may i ask what patches were
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:39:45AM +0100, Christian wrote:
Sven Luther wrote:
Some backports that i got from the list. The complete list of patches is
at :
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.8-2.6.8/debian/patches/?rev=0sc=0
dooh, these websvn
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:24:19AM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Oh, damn, need to fix my daily builder, should be ok for tomorrow. IN the
> > meanwhile, you can try :
> >
linuz-2.6.10-powerpc to your prep partition, or
better yet to a tftp server, and try it out. If the scsi problems are there,
can you fill a bug report against kernel-source-2.6.10 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
my daily builder, should be ok for tomorrow. IN the
meanwhile, you can try :
http://people.debian.org/~luther/d-i/images/2005-02-23/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
This is a zImage.prep kernel with builtin initrd, you just put it somewhere
where you can boot it from, usually a tftp server.
work for anyone else on Powerstack II Pro4000 (Utah)?
Can you try :
http://people.debian.org/~luther/d-i/images/daily/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
It works for me, and the kernel (2.6.8) has the irqs patched, but not the scsi
stuff touched, i think.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To u
://people.debian.org/~luther/d-i/images/daily/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
It works for me, and the kernel (2.6.8) has the irqs patched, but not the scsi
stuff touched, i think.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
