dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] > I doubt any distribution but the FSF "purified" Debian (the one that has > no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG "purified" Debian[1], please. [1] -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to

dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] I doubt any distribution but the FSF purified Debian (the one that has no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG purified Debian[1], please. [1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to live? )

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > > perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, > but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? > Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') > would be

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 > Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them >> for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official >> tree. I know just from monitoring this list

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > > > So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting > > > > around, if that's what we actually want to do. > > > > > > Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, > > > talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them > for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official > tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing > these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to > play in the "Grey Area", then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers > are already difficult and expensive for the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to play in the Grey Area, then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers are already difficult and expensive for the companies

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would never

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting around, if that's what we actually want to do. Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagged modules.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') would be

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] > > Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system > > rating. > OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older > boxen with strange gear == gear for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 10:36:02PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sat 2006-12-23 12:24:29, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:38:29PM +, Pavel Machek wrote: On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system rating. OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older boxen with strange gear == gear for which

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: > Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ "Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > 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 that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: > > > > The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people > > > > distributing the infringing software for 1

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! 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 that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation of the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Thu 14-12-06 20:51:36, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:17:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:33:47PM +, Alan wrote: The trick is to let a lawyer send cease and desist letters to people distributing the infringing software for 1 Euro at Ebay.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ Ein Herz für Kinder - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion:

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > > And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't > > matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have > > no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more > along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of > manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source > drivers for the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little > > multi-platform utility. It

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little multi-platform utility. It would run

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source drivers for the devices. I

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. On the

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

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

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> 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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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 :)

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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*

Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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 >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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 =

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> 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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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?

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

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.

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

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,

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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

Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19

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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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_ >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> 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

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

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.

  1   2   3   4   5   >