Re: Portable syscall inspection
On 5/29/07, Ralf Baechle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also consider that some architectures pass parts of the arguments in registers which on yet others are passed in memory. Sometimes padding arguments are needed and many more oddities. Similar for results. Inescapably such a program is a perment maintenance nightmare. Yes, I see. This nightmare appears to be the burden of the strace people, god bless them. I'm looking at moving their plethora of #ifdefs into a library so others can be spared the nightmare. Thanks, Trent - 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/
Re: Portable syscall inspection
On 5/29/07, Ralf Baechle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also consider that some architectures pass parts of the arguments in registers which on yet others are passed in memory. Sometimes padding arguments are needed and many more oddities. Similar for results. Inescapably such a program is a perment maintenance nightmare. Yes, I see. This nightmare appears to be the burden of the strace people, god bless them. I'm looking at moving their plethora of #ifdefs into a library so others can be spared the nightmare. Thanks, Trent - 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/
Portable syscall inspection
Someone finally noticed that my program that uses ptrace only works on i386.. and, by the looks of it, there is no portable way to refer to the registers of a user_regs_struct when inspecting a system call. I will probably end up making a header file for each architecture that defines where in the user_regs_struct things like the syscall number, the return value and the first 3 parameters are.. has anyone done this already? or can otherwise save me a lot of time? Thanks, Trent - 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/
Portable syscall inspection
Someone finally noticed that my program that uses ptrace only works on i386.. and, by the looks of it, there is no portable way to refer to the registers of a user_regs_struct when inspecting a system call. I will probably end up making a header file for each architecture that defines where in the user_regs_struct things like the syscall number, the return value and the first 3 parameters are.. has anyone done this already? or can otherwise save me a lot of time? Thanks, Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: " We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software." --IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the *copyrighted* *property* of the FSF and you are just another person that the GPL is applied to. Put *down* the crack pipe. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. --IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the *copyrighted* *property* of the FSF and you are just another person that the GPL is applied to. Put *down* the crack pipe. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think anyone wants to read that. I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is ok with me posting this, so enjoy: http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html There ya go. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think anyone wants to read that. I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is ok with me posting this, so enjoy: http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html There ya go. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of them, I think he has some good points. He suggested posting a transcript of our chat but, frankly, I don't think anyone wants to read that. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of art in copyright law", and "not a valid limitation of scope". If not, I highly recommend to you that master of exposition who goes by "Op. Cit.". You're really not helping yourself in making a convincing argument here. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing you if you can't be bothered to look back in the thread and Google a bit. Think of it as a penny ante, which is pretty cheap in a card game with billion-dollar table stakes. Well, with that attitude I can't imagine why people would think you're a crackpot.. Maybe if you cut back on what you believe the motive is for Eben Moglen wanting to misconstrue the law and focus on what you actually claim the law is then people wouldn't mind trawling through your insane ramblings to find the references that you claim back up your extraordinary claims. Now if you care to repeat your references here, without rambling on, I'm happy to go read them and temporarily suspend my belief that you're a crackpot. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can we put the gamesmanship on "low" here for a moment? Ask yourself which is more likely: am I a crank who spends years researching the legal background of the GPL solely for the purpose of ranting incoherently on debian-legal and LKML, that's what I figured yes, as you're obviously not interested in convincing anyone of your opinions, otherwise you wouldn't mind repeating yourself when someone asks you a simple question. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't have to argue these points, because they're obvious to anyone who cares to do their own homework. Appellate court decisions _are_ the law, my friend; read 'em and weep. Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide by conditions of a license before you can copy a copyright work? Please, tell us the names of these appellate court decisions so that we can read them and weep. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you "compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you create a work that "adapts" or "recasts" (or more generally "derives from") them, you're in another area of law. As I said, you're having a purely semantic argument. Regardless of what you *call* it, shoving two works together does not excuse you from the conditions of the license on one of those works, *when you make a copy*. And that's the GPL in a nutshell, if you want to copy the work, you need a license, if you want a license, you must abide the conditions, and one of the conditions is that you may not combine it with a work that is under an incompatible license unless it is mere aggregation. Of course, now you're going to argue that there's no such thing as an "incompatible license" or "mere aggregation" and that these are just words that were made up for the GPL, so they can be ignored.. another pointless semantic argument because it doesn't change the very simple fact that you don't have any rights to copy the work unless you have a license and you don't have a license if you fail to abide the conditions of the license. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality. It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two copyright works you are not obliged to conform with the conditions of the license on one of them when making a copy of the combined work? If you are just arguing about the term, what term do you find more appropriate? Compilation? You guys seem to love pointless semantic arguments. Are you always in violent agreement? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is no such thing as the "combined work". If I put a DVD of The Phantom Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a "combined work". If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work exists then you're obviously too far from reality for anyone to reason with. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no such thing as the combined work. If I put a DVD of The Phantom Menace in the same box as a DVD of The Big Lebowski, the box is not a combined work. If you can't even agree on that the legal concept of a combined work exists then you're obviously too far from reality for anyone to reason with. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bah. Show us a citation to treaty, statute, or case law, anywhere in the world, Mr. Consensus-Reality. It's a given.. are you seriously contending that if you combine two copyright works you are not obliged to conform with the conditions of the license on one of them when making a copy of the combined work? If you are just arguing about the term, what term do you find more appropriate? Compilation? You guys seem to love pointless semantic arguments. Are you always in violent agreement? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no legal meaning to combining two works of authorship under the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you compile or collect them, you're in one area of law, and if you create a work that adapts or recasts (or more generally derives from) them, you're in another area of law. As I said, you're having a purely semantic argument. Regardless of what you *call* it, shoving two works together does not excuse you from the conditions of the license on one of those works, *when you make a copy*. And that's the GPL in a nutshell, if you want to copy the work, you need a license, if you want a license, you must abide the conditions, and one of the conditions is that you may not combine it with a work that is under an incompatible license unless it is mere aggregation. Of course, now you're going to argue that there's no such thing as an incompatible license or mere aggregation and that these are just words that were made up for the GPL, so they can be ignored.. another pointless semantic argument because it doesn't change the very simple fact that you don't have any rights to copy the work unless you have a license and you don't have a license if you fail to abide the conditions of the license. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have to argue these points, because they're obvious to anyone who cares to do their own homework. Appellate court decisions _are_ the law, my friend; read 'em and weep. Hang on, you're actually debating that you have to abide by conditions of a license before you can copy a copyright work? Please, tell us the names of these appellate court decisions so that we can read them and weep. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can we put the gamesmanship on low here for a moment? Ask yourself which is more likely: am I a crank who spends years researching the legal background of the GPL solely for the purpose of ranting incoherently on debian-legal and LKML, that's what I figured yes, as you're obviously not interested in convincing anyone of your opinions, otherwise you wouldn't mind repeating yourself when someone asks you a simple question. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, dear, I'm just not interested in convincing you if you can't be bothered to look back in the thread and Google a bit. Think of it as a penny ante, which is pretty cheap in a card game with billion-dollar table stakes. Well, with that attitude I can't imagine why people would think you're a crackpot.. Maybe if you cut back on what you believe the motive is for Eben Moglen wanting to misconstrue the law and focus on what you actually claim the law is then people wouldn't mind trawling through your insane ramblings to find the references that you claim back up your extraordinary claims. Now if you care to repeat your references here, without rambling on, I'm happy to go read them and temporarily suspend my belief that you're a crackpot. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the meanings of ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed against the offeror, 'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of art in copyright law, and not a valid limitation of scope. If not, I highly recommend to you that master of exposition who goes by Op. Cit.. You're really not helping yourself in making a convincing argument here. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of them, I think he has some good points. He suggested posting a transcript of our chat but, frankly, I don't think anyone wants to read that. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, the FSF and many of its representatives, has claimed, on many occassions, that the GPL infects across dynamic linking. That is, if you write your own code that calls readline which links via a dynamically linked shared library, and perhaps even across dlopen(), they claim that the GPL applies to the code which you write. Given that the only way this could happen is via copyright law, they are basically saying that if you use the readline interface, you have created a derived work and they therefore 0wn your source code. Is that so? Whether or not this would be laughed out of court or not will very much depend on the local legal precedents (and Trent Waddington has quoted some very interesting legal cases based on US court decisions, Wow? I did? Really? I must have been sleep typing. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, the FSF and many of its representatives, has claimed, on many occassions, that the GPL infects across dynamic linking. That is, if you write your own code that calls readline which links via a dynamically linked shared library, and perhaps even across dlopen(), they claim that the GPL applies to the code which you write. Given that the only way this could happen is via copyright law, they are basically saying that if you use the readline interface, you have created a derived work and they therefore 0wn your source code. Is that so? Whether or not this would be laughed out of court or not will very much depend on the local legal precedents (and Trent Waddington has quoted some very interesting legal cases based on US court decisions, Wow? I did? Really? I must have been sleep typing. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you can read that and still tolerate the stench of the FSF's argument that linking against readline means they 0wn your source code, you have a stronger stomach than I. Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote carefully and correctly one set of people and to then total misconstrue the words of another. The FSF's argument in regards to readline is that you may not distribute readline with proprietary software linked to it. They don't claim they "0wn" your source code. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, David Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: by this same logic the EULA's that various commercial vendors use are completely valid, it doesn't matter what the intent is if it's not a legal thing to require. Yes, it does matter.. the author of the work has defined the terms under which you may use it.. if you don't like it, don't use the work. There's a name for people who look at everything in terms of "you can't make me". Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/17/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think that's grey at all. I think it's perfectly clear that linking cannot create a derivative work. No automated process can -- it takes creativity to create a derivative work. (That doesn't mean that just because you can link A to B, a cannot be a derivative work of B or vice verse, of course. It just means that if A is not a derivative work of B, linking A to B cannot make it so, nor can the result be a derivative work.) Sigh. VJ is distributing the linux kernel with proprietary extensions. If you want to argue that the proprietary extensions in isolation are not derivative works of the kernel, fine, you might have a case, but the combined work, which VJ is distributing is *clearly* a derivative work and must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Despite which, legal bullshit is best left for lawyers.. the *intent* of the GPL is that if you distribute *any* changes, extensions or plugins for a GPL work, you do so under the GPL. The law may not allow for this to be enforced, but it shouldn't need to.. one should read the GPL as 100% enforceable and follow it without looking for "loop holes" as it is the stated desire of how the author of the code wants you to use his work. Looking for loop holes, and worse yet, discussing those loop holes in a public place, is just insulting. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/17/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think that's grey at all. I think it's perfectly clear that linking cannot create a derivative work. No automated process can -- it takes creativity to create a derivative work. (That doesn't mean that just because you can link A to B, a cannot be a derivative work of B or vice verse, of course. It just means that if A is not a derivative work of B, linking A to B cannot make it so, nor can the result be a derivative work.) Sigh. VJ is distributing the linux kernel with proprietary extensions. If you want to argue that the proprietary extensions in isolation are not derivative works of the kernel, fine, you might have a case, but the combined work, which VJ is distributing is *clearly* a derivative work and must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. Despite which, legal bullshit is best left for lawyers.. the *intent* of the GPL is that if you distribute *any* changes, extensions or plugins for a GPL work, you do so under the GPL. The law may not allow for this to be enforced, but it shouldn't need to.. one should read the GPL as 100% enforceable and follow it without looking for loop holes as it is the stated desire of how the author of the code wants you to use his work. Looking for loop holes, and worse yet, discussing those loop holes in a public place, is just insulting. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, David Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: by this same logic the EULA's that various commercial vendors use are completely valid, it doesn't matter what the intent is if it's not a legal thing to require. Yes, it does matter.. the author of the work has defined the terms under which you may use it.. if you don't like it, don't use the work. There's a name for people who look at everything in terms of you can't make me. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/18/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you can read that and still tolerate the stench of the FSF's argument that linking against readline means they 0wn your source code, you have a stronger stomach than I. Such a strange attitude.. to go to all this effort to quote carefully and correctly one set of people and to then total misconstrue the words of another. The FSF's argument in regards to readline is that you may not distribute readline with proprietary software linked to it. They don't claim they 0wn your source code. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As others have pointed out, NVidia and ATI think they're in an OK spot with the way *they* do *their* module, Man, your sentence is so vague here that I almost don't feel the need to correct you, almost. I don't think NVIDIA or ATI think they can get away with distributing a binary only kernel module because of any of the technical measures they take to seperate themselves from the kernel code.. That's done for good technical reasons, they ship *BSD drivers too. I think the reason why they feel safe that no-one will sue them (and no company wants to be sued, even big ones by individual kernel developers) is because so few kernel developers have actually sued anyone for writing proprietary drivers. So here's my message to VJ, from a legal standpoint: don't worry about it. No-one who authored code you're linking your code against is likely to go on a suing spree anytime soon, they're too busy coding. You've already got my message from a moral point of view (and I'm still terribly confused about your reply). Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As others have pointed out, NVidia and ATI think they're in an OK spot with the way *they* do *their* module, Man, your sentence is so vague here that I almost don't feel the need to correct you, almost. I don't think NVIDIA or ATI think they can get away with distributing a binary only kernel module because of any of the technical measures they take to seperate themselves from the kernel code.. That's done for good technical reasons, they ship *BSD drivers too. I think the reason why they feel safe that no-one will sue them (and no company wants to be sued, even big ones by individual kernel developers) is because so few kernel developers have actually sued anyone for writing proprietary drivers. So here's my message to VJ, from a legal standpoint: don't worry about it. No-one who authored code you're linking your code against is likely to go on a suing spree anytime soon, they're too busy coding. You've already got my message from a moral point of view (and I'm still terribly confused about your reply). Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's written in black and white, in the license. Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in the Kernel. It doesn't. It does, however, say you can't distribute your module unless you make it available under the same terms as the kernel. It makes that really clear. I'll say that again, for everyone else who is reading this: the GPL makes it really clear that extensions to a GPL work are required to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. All this junk about "derivative works" is just the legal jargon used to implement the intent of the GPL. You can argue that a particular extension isn't a derivative work if you want, but you can't argue with the intent.. cause it is written in plain english. I know his opinion. I don't debate his opinion. It is his code. I choose not to use his code because of the license issue. That's good. No, just that the trend is disturbing. If enough Kernel Developers choose to write their Software in a way that prevents others from using it freely, then that is troubling. Especially when these Kernel Developers are substituting existing interfaces in the Kernel with ones that are NEW and require specific licenses. It's hardly a new trend.. the kernel has always been GPL.. the intent has always been that all extensions that are distributed be distributed under the GPL. This whole EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL thing is new.. but it doesn't require your module to be under the GPL to load, it requires that your module export a license declaration that claims it is GPL - you can do that without changing your license. Frankly, I don't understand why you're willing to ignore the intent of the GPL but you don't appear to be willing to just make your module export a license declaration of "GPL". Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is only because of the terms of GPL. Morally, as many here have pointed out this should fall into the same category. I say it does. If you have the ability, and enjoy Linux, you should try and make the time to contribute some code or other assistance to the Linux project. Atleast we try and report genuine bugs and submit patches when necessary. Good stuff. We get abuse however because it is not clear what the terms of GPL are WRT loadable modules. If this were written in black and white and we knew what we were fighting against, this would not be an issue. We only get crap because no one here yet knows how to interpret proprietary modules loaded into the kernel. It's written in black and white, in the license. Apart from that, Greg KH has made his opinion clear, and you have said you understand and don't debate that he holds this opinion, and his code is what you said you were linking to (the sysfs/class stuff), so why do you keep saying that "it is not clear". Do you think that, somehow, Linus' opinion trumps Greg KH's opinion on his own code? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite. In the context of the Linux kernel, I'm referring to the original reason why Linus chose the GPL for the Linux kernel. Great.. The reason why Greg KH, the guy who wrote the bit of code that vj claims he wants to link to but can't, chose the GPL for *his* code is clearly not the same as the reason why Linux chose the GPL. Exactly what that reason is, will be best left to Greg to say, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with what you call "marketing fluff" and the rest of us call the moral imperative. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, the people who are being worms are the people who are trying to use the GPL as a club to coerce people into not exercising the rights the GPL gave them. The people trying to change the rules in the middle of the game are the worms, not the people trying to play by them. I must have missed something, who is trying to coerce people into not exercising the rights the GPL gave them? I don't debate that people are trying to coerce people into passing on the rights the GPL gave them when they distribute the kernel... coercion, that's what software licenses are. Who's changing the rules? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and a half since I first brought this questionable act to their attention. Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think. If ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at all, and ATI has taken their lawyers' advice, then the advice would have been: we believe the risk of liability is acceptable. The only reason I can imagine why a lawyer would advise a client that it is an acceptable risk to do something legally questionable with the linux kernel is that so few kernel people have been sued for, or given notice of, an infringement. If any of the kernel developers, other than Harald Welte, are enforcing their copyright, they don't tend to publicize it. I, personally, don't know why anyone who owned copyright on any GPL software and had no desire to enforce that copyright, would not offer to assign their copyright to the FSF so they can defend it.. but I imagine people have their reasons. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Xavier Bestel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But that's not the case with VJ's drivers, which are apparently solely for linux, so should be distributed under the GPL. In any case, you're free to use any driver, regardless of license.. copyright does not cover use, only "copying" and most, if not all, jurisdictions make it clear that "copying into memory" is not a copyright matter. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And as I understand it, an important principle in out community is freedom. If vj wants to take a particular moral/ethical stance, then he should be free to do that. Of course he will have to live with any consequences, as do we all. Yes, and one of the consequences is that people who disagree with his stance tell him off for it. Him, and everyone else who profits from distributing GPL licensed code without abiding by the very simple requirements of the GPL are parasites. They should stop. Legally they might not be required to.. and some of the best legal minds in the world think they are, if only the copyright holders would sue already.. but that's just a side issue. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as I understand it, an important principle in out community is freedom. If vj wants to take a particular moral/ethical stance, then he should be free to do that. Of course he will have to live with any consequences, as do we all. Yes, and one of the consequences is that people who disagree with his stance tell him off for it. Him, and everyone else who profits from distributing GPL licensed code without abiding by the very simple requirements of the GPL are parasites. They should stop. Legally they might not be required to.. and some of the best legal minds in the world think they are, if only the copyright holders would sue already.. but that's just a side issue. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Xavier Bestel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But that's not the case with VJ's drivers, which are apparently solely for linux, so should be distributed under the GPL. In any case, you're free to use any driver, regardless of license.. copyright does not cover use, only copying and most, if not all, jurisdictions make it clear that copying into memory is not a copyright matter. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Dave Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume ATI's lawyers think its legal, as it's been a year and a half since I first brought this questionable act to their attention. Lawyers don't think X is legal.. that's not how lawyers think. If ATI's lawyers have advised ATI on this at all, and ATI has taken their lawyers' advice, then the advice would have been: we believe the risk of liability is acceptable. The only reason I can imagine why a lawyer would advise a client that it is an acceptable risk to do something legally questionable with the linux kernel is that so few kernel people have been sued for, or given notice of, an infringement. If any of the kernel developers, other than Harald Welte, are enforcing their copyright, they don't tend to publicize it. I, personally, don't know why anyone who owned copyright on any GPL software and had no desire to enforce that copyright, would not offer to assign their copyright to the FSF so they can defend it.. but I imagine people have their reasons. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, the people who are being worms are the people who are trying to use the GPL as a club to coerce people into not exercising the rights the GPL gave them. The people trying to change the rules in the middle of the game are the worms, not the people trying to play by them. I must have missed something, who is trying to coerce people into not exercising the rights the GPL gave them? I don't debate that people are trying to coerce people into passing on the rights the GPL gave them when they distribute the kernel... coercion, that's what software licenses are. Who's changing the rules? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, that's the FSF marketing fluff you've been taught to recite. In the context of the Linux kernel, I'm referring to the original reason why Linus chose the GPL for the Linux kernel. Great.. The reason why Greg KH, the guy who wrote the bit of code that vj claims he wants to link to but can't, chose the GPL for *his* code is clearly not the same as the reason why Linux chose the GPL. Exactly what that reason is, will be best left to Greg to say, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with what you call marketing fluff and the rest of us call the moral imperative. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is only because of the terms of GPL. Morally, as many here have pointed out this should fall into the same category. I say it does. If you have the ability, and enjoy Linux, you should try and make the time to contribute some code or other assistance to the Linux project. Atleast we try and report genuine bugs and submit patches when necessary. Good stuff. We get abuse however because it is not clear what the terms of GPL are WRT loadable modules. If this were written in black and white and we knew what we were fighting against, this would not be an issue. We only get crap because no one here yet knows how to interpret proprietary modules loaded into the kernel. It's written in black and white, in the license. Apart from that, Greg KH has made his opinion clear, and you have said you understand and don't debate that he holds this opinion, and his code is what you said you were linking to (the sysfs/class stuff), so why do you keep saying that it is not clear. Do you think that, somehow, Linus' opinion trumps Greg KH's opinion on his own code? Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/16/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's written in black and white, in the license. Please point me to where it says I cannot load proprietary modules in the Kernel. It doesn't. It does, however, say you can't distribute your module unless you make it available under the same terms as the kernel. It makes that really clear. I'll say that again, for everyone else who is reading this: the GPL makes it really clear that extensions to a GPL work are required to be distributed under the terms of the GPL. All this junk about derivative works is just the legal jargon used to implement the intent of the GPL. You can argue that a particular extension isn't a derivative work if you want, but you can't argue with the intent.. cause it is written in plain english. I know his opinion. I don't debate his opinion. It is his code. I choose not to use his code because of the license issue. That's good. No, just that the trend is disturbing. If enough Kernel Developers choose to write their Software in a way that prevents others from using it freely, then that is troubling. Especially when these Kernel Developers are substituting existing interfaces in the Kernel with ones that are NEW and require specific licenses. It's hardly a new trend.. the kernel has always been GPL.. the intent has always been that all extensions that are distributed be distributed under the GPL. This whole EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL thing is new.. but it doesn't require your module to be under the GPL to load, it requires that your module export a license declaration that claims it is GPL - you can do that without changing your license. Frankly, I don't understand why you're willing to ignore the intent of the GPL but you don't appear to be willing to just make your module export a license declaration of GPL. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] then it is less clear what people believe Another area where it is less clear what people believe is if you are distributing the module separately to the kernel, but, as I understand it, vj says he is not. But of course the person who's opinion really counts is the judge. The judge's opinion only counts if you actually get to court and manage to put up a legal defense. So you need to get legal advice. Or, ya know, you could take the moral/ethical advice that you're being a worm and stop now. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the "higher authorities". Linus, please save Linux! Oh boy. Guess what? $ head -3 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class What: /sys/class/ Date: Febuary 2006 Contact:Greg Kroah-Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yeah, that's right. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If adding closed drivers to Linux is illegal, I am perfectly fine with that. Just say so. I am not at a dead-end yet, until you make that statement. Once you make that statement, then all bets are off. I am betting that most companies will not even consider Linux as an alternative in the embedded space if this were the case. Greg KH has already made that statement. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html half way down, "Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal". As was said, welcome to 6 months ago. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You don't get it do you. I think everyone on the list was thinking the same thing about you. We are only _using_ Linux. Yes, I think we all can see that. Using our source code would not benefit anybody but our competitors. Without knowing what your drivers are, I can't argue about this. Maybe someday, embedded devices will move into the 21st century and I'll be able to get a DVD player, microwave oven or home security system that is user programmable, but I doubt your company will make it. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor. Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims to stop people like you from writing proprietary drivers. Although you (or your company) clearly has the ability to contribute to Linux, you have chosen not to. Instead, you just leach off those that do. As such, I believe you and your ilk are ethically deplorable and the fact that you would come here to try to point out to the contributors that they are going to lose people like you if they don't stop "threatening" your drivers not only baffles me, it sickens me. At least with NVIDIA and ATI they're not actually profiting from the existence of Linux, but you're actually selling the stuff and you don't even consider the very reasonable proposition of sharing your source code in return. It's not like they're asking for money.. man, this is the Linux project, they don't even ask for copyright assignment or allegiance to an ideology.. Do the right thing, cough up your source code, get it integrated into the tree and let the community do what it does so well. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The drivers which we have written over the last three years are suddenly under threat. [..] The fact that Linux is becoming more and more closed is very very alarming. Sigh. Someone remind me of the rules against "politics" on the list before I get into why vj should play nice with the other children. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The drivers which we have written over the last three years are suddenly under threat. [..] The fact that Linux is becoming more and more closed is very very alarming. Sigh. Someone remind me of the rules against politics on the list before I get into why vj should play nice with the other children. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This has nothing to do with politics. I am not a Linux contributor. Here-in lies the problem. I am one of the few people willing to state openly that I wish those who can, would use their legal claims to stop people like you from writing proprietary drivers. Although you (or your company) clearly has the ability to contribute to Linux, you have chosen not to. Instead, you just leach off those that do. As such, I believe you and your ilk are ethically deplorable and the fact that you would come here to try to point out to the contributors that they are going to lose people like you if they don't stop threatening your drivers not only baffles me, it sickens me. At least with NVIDIA and ATI they're not actually profiting from the existence of Linux, but you're actually selling the stuff and you don't even consider the very reasonable proposition of sharing your source code in return. It's not like they're asking for money.. man, this is the Linux project, they don't even ask for copyright assignment or allegiance to an ideology.. Do the right thing, cough up your source code, get it integrated into the tree and let the community do what it does so well. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You don't get it do you. I think everyone on the list was thinking the same thing about you. We are only _using_ Linux. Yes, I think we all can see that. Using our source code would not benefit anybody but our competitors. Without knowing what your drivers are, I can't argue about this. Maybe someday, embedded devices will move into the 21st century and I'll be able to get a DVD player, microwave oven or home security system that is user programmable, but I doubt your company will make it. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If adding closed drivers to Linux is illegal, I am perfectly fine with that. Just say so. I am not at a dead-end yet, until you make that statement. Once you make that statement, then all bets are off. I am betting that most companies will not even consider Linux as an alternative in the embedded space if this were the case. Greg KH has already made that statement. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html half way down, Closed source Linux kernel modules are illegal. As was said, welcome to 6 months ago. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, v j [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am well aware of what Greg KHs position is, in fact he is the reason I started the whole rant. This is only a plea to the higher authorities. Linus, please save Linux! Oh boy. Guess what? $ head -3 Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class What: /sys/class/ Date: Febuary 2006 Contact:Greg Kroah-Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, that's right. Trent - 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/
Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers
On 2/15/07, Neil Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [..] then it is less clear what people believe Another area where it is less clear what people believe is if you are distributing the module separately to the kernel, but, as I understand it, vj says he is not. But of course the person who's opinion really counts is the judge. The judge's opinion only counts if you actually get to court and manage to put up a legal defense. So you need to get legal advice. Or, ya know, you could take the moral/ethical advice that you're being a worm and stop now. Trent - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel, play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in 'printf(license)'? Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the jerks who make proprietary modules are just blatantly breaking the law. But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that licenses other than the GPL are ok. Trent - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it just seems totally obvious (any legal comment?) that early C string termination is undermining the intent of the MODULE_LICENSE tag. I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you exactly what a lawyer would say: "well, ya know, it's hard to say when it comes to these issues" that's the answer to *any* copyright question. :) Trent - 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/
Re: Mach-O loader
On 2/2/07, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I started working on one a while ago but I ran out of time to dedicate to the project. My schedule is opening up again, though, so I plan to start working on it again. At this point I have most of the actual loader code written, the problem is that the syscalls between Linux and Darwin are very different and need a binary translation layer which is still in the concept phase at this point. :-D I've written one before for the Boomerang[1] project. Don't worry about the system calls, that's not the point. I do wonder if you can mix Mach-O and ELF binaries in the same process however.. that would be good. If you like, send me the code and I'll take a look at it. Trent [1] http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/ I don't work on this anymore due to work constraints. - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not all of them. It seems it's kosher to rewrite a corp GPL driver but not a "community" one. As I said, Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting the author of an existing driver.. corp *or* community.. so who said it was? You can rewrite whatever you feel like rewriting. Greg was talking about what is polite usage of someone elses code. In particular, doing stuff they've specifically said they don't want you to do with it is rude. From a practical standpoint it makes sense, I think: the guy who wrote the code is often the best person to maintain it, so don't piss him off. If you want to rewrite it, then you would be the guy offering to maintain it.. Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well, reengineering nvidia/ati DRM is rude to ati/nvidia, so was creating tigon3, so was rewriting from scratch the GPL drivers some ATA vendors published in the past, so was spurning the SATA/SAS stack adaptec offered... It is rude, but they're writing proprietary modules, and *that* is rude, so screw 'em. If the answer is no, then there is a big pile of device documentation (in the form of source code) waiting to be used. Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting the author of an existing driver.. just that taking their code without asking them if they would prefer to put it in the tree themselves is a bit rude. Admittably there is a point where this whole politeness thing could get out of hand, but I think a good rule of thumb is to ask the author if they're ok with you doing X with their code, and if they say no, well, try to be gracious about it. Not that they *should* say no, this *is* free software after all. Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, reengineering nvidia/ati DRM is rude to ati/nvidia, so was creating tigon3, so was rewriting from scratch the GPL drivers some ATA vendors published in the past, so was spurning the SATA/SAS stack adaptec offered... It is rude, but they're writing proprietary modules, and *that* is rude, so screw 'em. If the answer is no, then there is a big pile of device documentation (in the form of source code) waiting to be used. Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting the author of an existing driver.. just that taking their code without asking them if they would prefer to put it in the tree themselves is a bit rude. Admittably there is a point where this whole politeness thing could get out of hand, but I think a good rule of thumb is to ask the author if they're ok with you doing X with their code, and if they say no, well, try to be gracious about it. Not that they *should* say no, this *is* free software after all. Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not all of them. It seems it's kosher to rewrite a corp GPL driver but not a community one. As I said, Greg didn't say it was rude to write a new driver without consulting the author of an existing driver.. corp *or* community.. so who said it was? You can rewrite whatever you feel like rewriting. Greg was talking about what is polite usage of someone elses code. In particular, doing stuff they've specifically said they don't want you to do with it is rude. From a practical standpoint it makes sense, I think: the guy who wrote the code is often the best person to maintain it, so don't piss him off. If you want to rewrite it, then you would be the guy offering to maintain it.. Trent - 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/
Re: Mach-O loader
On 2/2/07, Kyle Moffett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I started working on one a while ago but I ran out of time to dedicate to the project. My schedule is opening up again, though, so I plan to start working on it again. At this point I have most of the actual loader code written, the problem is that the syscalls between Linux and Darwin are very different and need a binary translation layer which is still in the concept phase at this point. :-D I've written one before for the Boomerang[1] project. Don't worry about the system calls, that's not the point. I do wonder if you can mix Mach-O and ELF binaries in the same process however.. that would be good. If you like, send me the code and I'll take a look at it. Trent [1] http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/ I don't work on this anymore due to work constraints. - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
On 2/2/07, Jon Masters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. I totally dig the *idea* here - I mean, this issue has been ongoing for a long time now. But I'd like to see a few comments as to whether we need a technological mechanism here to enforce the obvious. To me, it just seems totally obvious (any legal comment?) that early C string termination is undermining the intent of the MODULE_LICENSE tag. I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you exactly what a lawyer would say: well, ya know, it's hard to say when it comes to these issues that's the answer to *any* copyright question. :) Trent - 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/
Re: [PATCH] Ban module license tag string termination trick
On 2/2/07, Tomas Carnecky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can't you put this somewhere into the documentation: it's our kernel, play by our rules, and our rules are, the license is what is visible in 'printf(license)'? Here I was thinking the rules were: all modules must be GPL and the jerks who make proprietary modules are just blatantly breaking the law. But you're right, the MODULE_LICENSE tag really does imply that licenses other than the GPL are ok. Trent - 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/
Mach-O loader
Anyone know if a loader for Mach-O binaries for Linux has been written? Thanks, Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, I'm going by Linus's rule here, if a person doesn't want their code in the kernel tree, then I'm not going to forcefully put it there. That's just being rude. Makes sense when you put it that way. However, perhaps an offer to take over the maintenance of the driver when incorporating it into the kernel tree would be welcomed more readily by some people than just "so when ya gunna merge?" style badgering. Not that I'm not a fan of badgering. Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That lists seems really outdata. - RaLink has gpl drivers (SerialMonkey maintains a better version), - Cisco IPSEC can be replaced by the userspace tool vpnc (as far as the VPN Concentrators I have to deal with), It's a wiki[1], I invite everyone to fix the current information and add any new binary-only modules they are aware of. Trent [1] that url again, http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/wiki/index.php/Binary_Kernel_Modules_List - 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/
Re: Rewriting floppy.c was Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sounds like a fun little project. I'll bite. Let me know when you have something and I'll go buy those floppies, test it and fix a bug or two if I find 'em. Trent - 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/
Re: Rewriting floppy.c was Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds like a fun little project. I'll bite. Let me know when you have something and I'll go buy those floppies, test it and fix a bug or two if I find 'em. Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That lists seems really outdata. - RaLink has gpl drivers (SerialMonkey maintains a better version), - Cisco IPSEC can be replaced by the userspace tool vpnc (as far as the VPN Concentrators I have to deal with), It's a wiki[1], I invite everyone to fix the current information and add any new binary-only modules they are aware of. Trent [1] that url again, http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/wiki/index.php/Binary_Kernel_Modules_List - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 2/1/07, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I'm going by Linus's rule here, if a person doesn't want their code in the kernel tree, then I'm not going to forcefully put it there. That's just being rude. Makes sense when you put it that way. However, perhaps an offer to take over the maintenance of the driver when incorporating it into the kernel tree would be welcomed more readily by some people than just so when ya gunna merge? style badgering. Not that I'm not a fan of badgering. Trent - 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/
Mach-O loader
Anyone know if a loader for Mach-O binaries for Linux has been written? Thanks, Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would someone from your long list of people e.g. be willing to maintain drivers/block/floppy.c ? I have a floppy drive! Will have to go buy some disks though. What's wrong with it? Trent - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Dave Airlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm sort of with Roland on this, the timelines aren't usually worth it for a company to bother especially with complicated hardware, the time taken to do a community graphics driver for any GPU where specs have been available approaches infinity, unless the vendor actually does the driver or pays someone to do the driver the hope of a community supported driver reaching maturity while the product is still available is slim for anyone desparate to start writing device drivers, XGI have recently dropped a load of specs for their cards, I'm not seeing anyone other than the usual GPU ppl step up an do anything and as I said the time it takes a single volunteer to write a GPU driver is a lot longer than the card... All this sounds like a lack of organisation on the side of the community to me. Greg saying that he and others are twiddling their thumbs because they don't know what hardware needs drivers says that too. Where is the list of hardware-without-drivers? Until recently there hasn't even been a list of hardware-with-binary-only-drivers [1]. So anyone who has the necessary skills and thinks gee, I might have a go at writing a linux kernel driver, has no idea where to go or what to do. I wonder how many vendors have a policy of just ignoring emails from hackers asking for specifications because they have already given the specifications to Redhat or someone else, but hackers just keep asking them again and again. Trent 1. see http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/wiki/index.php/Binary_Kernel_Modules_List for a partial list. - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Dave Airlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sort of with Roland on this, the timelines aren't usually worth it for a company to bother especially with complicated hardware, the time taken to do a community graphics driver for any GPU where specs have been available approaches infinity, unless the vendor actually does the driver or pays someone to do the driver the hope of a community supported driver reaching maturity while the product is still available is slim for anyone desparate to start writing device drivers, XGI have recently dropped a load of specs for their cards, I'm not seeing anyone other than the usual GPU ppl step up an do anything and as I said the time it takes a single volunteer to write a GPU driver is a lot longer than the card... All this sounds like a lack of organisation on the side of the community to me. Greg saying that he and others are twiddling their thumbs because they don't know what hardware needs drivers says that too. Where is the list of hardware-without-drivers? Until recently there hasn't even been a list of hardware-with-binary-only-drivers [1]. So anyone who has the necessary skills and thinks gee, I might have a go at writing a linux kernel driver, has no idea where to go or what to do. I wonder how many vendors have a policy of just ignoring emails from hackers asking for specifications because they have already given the specifications to Redhat or someone else, but hackers just keep asking them again and again. Trent 1. see http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/wiki/index.php/Binary_Kernel_Modules_List for a partial list. - 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/
Re: Free Linux Driver Development!
On 1/31/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would someone from your long list of people e.g. be willing to maintain drivers/block/floppy.c ? I have a floppy drive! Will have to go buy some disks though. What's wrong with it? Trent - 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/
Re: [discuss] portmapping sucks
On 1/25/07, Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are a number of common ports in the 512-1023 range. All obsolescence and meaninglessness aside, there _are_ rather "important" services in that range, ldaps, rtsp, kerberos, rsync, ftps, imaps, just to name a few from /etc/services. This map-to-random-port behavior is a total DoS thing. Any reason why you can't make a one line code change to use a better range? Or add a blacklist? Trent - 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/
Re: [discuss] portmapping sucks
On 1/25/07, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are a number of common ports in the 512-1023 range. All obsolescence and meaninglessness aside, there _are_ rather important services in that range, ldaps, rtsp, kerberos, rsync, ftps, imaps, just to name a few from /etc/services. This map-to-random-port behavior is a total DoS thing. Any reason why you can't make a one line code change to use a better range? Or add a blacklist? Trent - 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/
Re: Accelerated driver for linux 2.6
On 1/9/07, Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I want to write open source driver. BUT I don't know if i am allowed to do this. Our company is small, just a few researchers, and most of software written is published under GPL licence (not all, but that is firmware for uC), all of the communication protocols are public and API is well documented, because we all agreed that we are selling hardware not software. Our lawyer will review the licence, and then I can tell you more. Ok, sounds good. Pop over to http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ and look at what they are doing. For the linux kernel, you are interested in the DRM component. You should read this link: http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/dri-explanation.txt which explains what each component in the linux graphics pipeline does. Also have a look at this link: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/MesaDriver Hope that helps you. Trent - 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/
Re: Accelerated driver for linux 2.6
On 1/9/07, Rok Markovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I want to write open source driver. BUT I don't know if i am allowed to do this. Our company is small, just a few researchers, and most of software written is published under GPL licence (not all, but that is firmware for uC), all of the communication protocols are public and API is well documented, because we all agreed that we are selling hardware not software. Our lawyer will review the licence, and then I can tell you more. Ok, sounds good. Pop over to http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ and look at what they are doing. For the linux kernel, you are interested in the DRM component. You should read this link: http://people.freedesktop.org/~ajax/dri-explanation.txt which explains what each component in the linux graphics pipeline does. Also have a look at this link: http://dri.freedesktop.org/wiki/MesaDriver Hope that helps you. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It does already exist: http://winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-guide/index That's half the guide I recommended Dirk write.. and could do with some updating. The other half is how exactly you go about using DirectX with winelib. I've seen no guide to *that*. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And remember Picasa as a success story for Wine - exactly because a port would have required too much effort for developers that were busy with other things. I understand what you're saying here, but Picasa *is* a port. They ship an elf binary that links to winelib and they integrate in native file pickers for your favourite platform. If by "port" you mean "GUI rewrite to use GNOME or KDE" then no, it isn't that, but that doesn't mean it's not a port. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Dirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I tried to get WoW installed with Cedega 5.2.9 for two days now. Cedega is not a replacement for ports. And it does not encourage ports. We're totally off topic now, but what the hell.. You wanna encourage ports? Write a step by step guide on how to most easily port a modern game from Windows to Linux. My suggestion would be to use winelib and include all the workarounds needed to make the game compatible with the DirectX support in wine. As far as I'm aware, there is no such guide, so if a games company was to decide to port their game to Linux (for whatever whacky reason) they wouldn't even know how much work they have ahead of them. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
Call me crazy, but game manufacturers want directx right? You aint running that in the kernel. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
Call me crazy, but game manufacturers want directx right? You aint running that in the kernel. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Dirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tried to get WoW installed with Cedega 5.2.9 for two days now. Cedega is not a replacement for ports. And it does not encourage ports. We're totally off topic now, but what the hell.. You wanna encourage ports? Write a step by step guide on how to most easily port a modern game from Windows to Linux. My suggestion would be to use winelib and include all the workarounds needed to make the game compatible with the DirectX support in wine. As far as I'm aware, there is no such guide, so if a games company was to decide to port their game to Linux (for whatever whacky reason) they wouldn't even know how much work they have ahead of them. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And remember Picasa as a success story for Wine - exactly because a port would have required too much effort for developers that were busy with other things. I understand what you're saying here, but Picasa *is* a port. They ship an elf binary that links to winelib and they integrate in native file pickers for your favourite platform. If by port you mean GUI rewrite to use GNOME or KDE then no, it isn't that, but that doesn't mean it's not a port. Trent - 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/
Re: Gaming Interface
On 1/9/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It does already exist: http://winehq.org/site/docs/winelib-guide/index That's half the guide I recommended Dirk write.. and could do with some updating. The other half is how exactly you go about using DirectX with winelib. I've seen no guide to *that*. Trent - 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/
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called "agreement" on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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/
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to a so-called agreement on the costs. On 1/2/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught. Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in search of offenders. The list of features which the driver supports is going to be sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer graphics hardware. Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a disassembler jockey. So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries. It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a patent lawsuit. Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they don't see the benefit? If that's the case, what benefit can we offer them? Trent - 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/
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or "obviousness" grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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/
Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size. Now, even totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who, that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those vague submarine patents that should have been killed on prior art or obviousness grounds. So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP issues? I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response is.. I guess I deserve it. I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of hacker lore in recent years. It's caused by how little we know about software patents. The myth is that if you release source code which violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release binaries that violate someone's patent. This is clearly, obviously, false. If you're practising the invention without a license in your source code then you're practising the invention without a license in binaries compiled from that source code. Period. Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason: it's not their culture. They don't see the need. They don't see the benefit. Trent - 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/
