On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said:
> Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to
> allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware
> specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the
> hardware
Here are some minor driver core patches for 2.6.20-rc1
The descriptions of them are below.
All of these patches have been in the -mm tree for a while.
Please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-2.6.git/
or if master.kernel.org hasn't synced up yet
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote:
> > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free,
> nor is
> > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
>
> As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
> Information wants to be
> This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this
> Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it.
> However, that's
> not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you
> put in? Do you use:
> a) the *default* graphics card
> b) the
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said:
> On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like
> > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo?
>
> It would be really cool to see penguin logos on
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said:
On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like
`LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo?
It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :)
This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this
Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it.
However, that's
not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you
put in? Do you use:
a) the *default* graphics card
b) the one *I*
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote:
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free,
nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the
Here are some minor driver core patches for 2.6.20-rc1
The descriptions of them are below.
All of these patches have been in the -mm tree for a while.
Please pull from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-2.6.git/
or if master.kernel.org hasn't synced up yet
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said:
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to
allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware
specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the
hardware specifications
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote:
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free,
nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said:
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to
allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware
specifications are available. It's not about driver
On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> > That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of
> > your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would
> > have no objection to also
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>> FWIW:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ?
>> ret = pciids_to_names(data)
>> File
El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids'
>
> That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system
Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and
Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> FWIW:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ?
> ret = pciids_to_names(data)
> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 11, in pciids_to_names
>
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote:
>El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>> I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize
>> the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness
>> matrix
El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
escribió:
> I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the
> current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix
> site?
I've a script (attached) that looks into
On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like
> `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo?
It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :)
I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to
On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like
`LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo?
It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :)
I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to
El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escribió:
I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the
current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix
site?
I've a script (attached) that looks into
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote:
El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize
the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness
matrix site?
I've
El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids'
That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system
Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and
Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
FWIW:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 70, in ?
ret = pciids_to_names(data)
File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 11, in pciids_to_names
pciids =
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
FWIW:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File list-kernel-hardware.py, line 70, in ?
ret = pciids_to_names(data)
File
On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of
your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would
have no objection to also requiring
On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer
neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able
to do something) _nor_ a legal issue.
So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
>
> I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
> touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
> GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
> made.
.. and then what does that
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote:
> I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
> restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
> the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
> enforce distribution of
Hi :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
> what copyright law defines.
Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work.
> And trying to push that definition too far is a total
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
??
Please don't be rude.
???
J
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
Please don't be rude.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
> It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
> people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
> I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
> that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
> loose
It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of
people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time.
I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways
that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a
loose band
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
Please don't be rude.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into
legal theory:
Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible
license are inconsiderate and rude.
??
Please don't be rude.
???
J
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from
Hi :o)
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But the point is, derived work is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's
what copyright law defines.
Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work.
And trying to push that definition too far is a total disaster.
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote:
I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more
restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently
the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works,
enforce distribution of source
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all
touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the
GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be
made.
.. and then what does that mean? It
On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer
neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able
to do something) _nor_ a legal issue.
So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually do?
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
> > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
> > actually use any code? The
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [...]
> >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
> > > done properly (and I think we use
On Sunday, 17 December 2006 11:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> > > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> > > buy some hardware labelled "runs
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
> >> >Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in
Hi!
> > Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
> > still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
> > developent are actually of 2nd kind.
>
> Isn't that what qemu is for?
I do not think you can reasonably debug driver for new hardware under
qemu.
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
> > And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
> > information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
> > buy some hardware labelled "runs under Linux", it could turn out that's
> > with a Windows driver running
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
buy some hardware labelled runs under Linux, it could turn out that's
with a Windows driver running under
Hi!
Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
developent are actually of 2nd kind.
Isn't that what qemu is for?
I do not think you can reasonably debug driver for new hardware under
qemu.
Anyway,
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 14:10, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:55 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 12:31:16 +0100
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
You think its any easier to debug because the code now runs in ring 3 but
On Sunday, 17 December 2006 11:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
And there's also the common misconception all costumers had enough
information when buying something. If you are a normal Linux user and
buy some hardware labelled runs under Linux, it
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:08:41AM -0800, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:03:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
I actually think the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() thing is a good thing, if
done properly (and I think we use it fairly
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
actually use any code? The real answer
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 01:22:12AM +0100, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> OK, let assume your perspective of the history is the valid and real one,
> then, ¿where are all lawsits against other big GPL only projects? For example
> libqt/kdelibs. You can hardly provide any example where the GPL wasn't hold
On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:56:09AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> Otherwise, it seems to be highly unlikely that anyone will want to sue a
> company that is often located in a different country, and the only
> possible legal action will be cease and desist letters against people
> who are
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:33:01PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
> > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
> > actually
On Saturday 16 December 2006 22:01, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> > As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never
> > tried to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to
> > "distibution" of the covered program. The freedom
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> > to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> > I can
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
> As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL "zealots" never tried
> to change or restrict "fair use". GPL[23] covers only to "distibution" of the
> covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: "right to use the program
> for any
On Dec 16 2006 15:13, Lee Revell wrote:
>On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>> They use floating point in (Windows) kernelspace? Oh my.
>
>Yes, definitely.
Explains why Windows is so slow ;-) [FPU restore and stuff...]
On that matter, when does the Linux kernel do
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
> to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
> I can consider it "fair use" if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
> the
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Dec 14 2006 10:56, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> >
> >A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
> >100 pieces per year, only in Germany and only with Windows drivers. He would
> >now like to make his cards
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
> decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
> actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_
>
> I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized
> that they have "fair use" rights whether the authors give them or not, and
^
> that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a "derived work"
...
> I find the RIAA's position and the
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
> because I think that you (as the "author") are in the type of authors
> you describe below :
>
> > Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use.
Sure.
On 12/15/06, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is
> it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
Theodore Tso wrote:
> P.S. For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
> MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.
>
(Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as "news".
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent.
>
> No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
> can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
> them somehow.
Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> > between the author's intent and the user's intent.
>
> That is NOT TRUE. If the author's
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. "fair use" comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent
and the users intent.
In other words, "fair use"
On Sat, 16 December 2006 09:05:32 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
> still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
> developent are actually of 2nd kind.
Isn't that what qemu is for?
Jörn
--
Happiness isn't
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
>I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
> we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
> support them somehow.
>
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> All this is about "fair use", and "fair use" comes from compatibility
> between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
a TV with a screen larger than 29" and
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 16
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As it stands, I believe the
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
> > >
> > > As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
> > > certain restrictions and come with
Hi!
> > Seriously, though, please please pretty please do not allow a facility
> > for "going through a simple interface to get accesses to irqs and
> > memory regions" into the mainline kernel, with or without toy ISA
> > examples.
>
> I do agree.
>
> I'm not violently opposed to something
Hi!
Seriously, though, please please pretty please do not allow a facility
for going through a simple interface to get accesses to irqs and
memory regions into the mainline kernel, with or without toy ISA
examples.
I do agree.
I'm not violently opposed to something like this in
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux kernel does impose
certain restrictions and come with certain
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio wrote:
As it stands, I believe the licence of the Linux
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 11:50, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:28:27AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 06:55:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, karderio
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is that anyone who is using
a TV with a screen larger than 29 and with
On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[...]
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that
we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to
support them somehow.
So,
On Sat, 16 December 2006 09:05:32 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
Well.. it is easier to debug in userspace. While bad hw access can
still kill the box, bad free() will not, and most bugs in early
developent are actually of 2nd kind.
Isn't that what qemu is for?
Jörn
--
Happiness isn't having
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. fair use comes from an INcompatibility between the author's intent
and the users intent.
In other words, fair use kicks in
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:42:36AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:43:44AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
That is NOT TRUE. If the author's intent is
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that we
can't support their users _at_ _all_, but some of them expect us to support
them somehow.
Actually, I do think that we've made our position on that side pretty
clear.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 08:28:20AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
All this is about fair use, and fair use comes from compatibility
between the author's intent and the user's intent.
No. fair use comes from an INcompatibility between the author's
Theodore Tso wrote:
P.S. For people who live in the US; write your congresscritters; the
MPAA wants to propose new legislation stating exactly this.
(Erm, that was a joke on a parody site; it got widely reported as news.
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html
On 12/15/06, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
blather and idiotic hogwash. Information doesn't want to be free, nor is
it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage.
As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus.
Information wants to be free, the natural
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I understand your point, but not completely agree with the comparison,
because I think that you (as the author) are in the type of authors
you describe below :
Of course, all reasonable true authors tend to agree with fair use.
Sure. Sadly, in
I think it would be a hell of a lot better idea if people just realized
that they have fair use rights whether the authors give them or not, and
^
that the authors copyrights NEVER extend to anything but a derived work
...
I find the RIAA's position and the DMCA
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge
decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't
actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_
possible
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Dec 14 2006 10:56, Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
A small German manufacturer produces high-end AD converter cards. He sells
100 pieces per year, only in Germany and only with Windows drivers. He would
now like to make his cards work with
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
I can consider it fair use if a family of 4..8 persons watch the DVD at
the same
On Dec 16 2006 15:13, Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 18:02 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
They use floating point in (Windows) kernelspace? Oh my.
Yes, definitely.
Explains why Windows is so slow ;-) [FPU restore and stuff...]
On that matter, when does the Linux kernel do proper FPU
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Ricardo Galli wrote:
As you probably know, the GPL, the FSF, RMS or even GPL zealots never tried
to change or restrict fair use. GPL[23] covers only to distibution of the
covered program. The freedom #0 says explicitly: right to use the program
for any purpose.
I'm
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 03:23:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 05:30:31PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
I don't think this is the same case. The film _author_'s primary goal is
to have a lot of families buy his DVD to watch it. Whatever the MPAA says,
I can consider it
201 - 300 of 629 matches
Mail list logo
