systems with paravirt enabled and trying to compile
the binary graphic drivers from amd(ati) and nvidia.
is there a chance to see these symbols not exported as GPL?
Or do they have to change their binary drivers?
thanks in advance
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Pac
systems with paravirt enabled and trying to compile
the binary graphic drivers from amd(ati) and nvidia.
is there a chance to see these symbols not exported as GPL?
Or do they have to change their binary drivers?
thanks in advance
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer Package
On Nov 1 2007 19:36, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
>Hi
>commit to .24 tree:
>http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=93b1eab3d29e7ea32ee583de3362da84db06ded8
>
>introduces:
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pv_mmu_ops);
>+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pv_cpu_ops);
>
>pv_cpu_ops is for nvidia
systems with paravirt enabled and trying to compile
the binary graphic drivers from amd(ati) and nvidia.
is there a chance to see these symbols not exported as GPL?
Or do they have to change their binary drivers?
thanks in advance
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Pac
systems with paravirt enabled and trying to compile
the binary graphic drivers from amd(ati) and nvidia.
is there a chance to see these symbols not exported as GPL?
Or do they have to change their binary drivers?
thanks in advance
greetings
tpowa
--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer Package
On Nov 1 2007 19:36, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
Hi
commit to .24 tree:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=93b1eab3d29e7ea32ee583de3362da84db06ded8
introduces:
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pv_mmu_ops);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pv_cpu_ops);
pv_cpu_ops is for nvidia
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
> > There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to
> > warn people
> > about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it,
> Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
> says "Warning: Coffee is served
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> > infringement on a list of given
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
infringement on a list of given patents so
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to
warn people
about the risks. The cup says hot on it,
Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
> There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people
> about the risks. The cup says "hot" on it,
Actually, the "HOT" on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
says "Warning: Coffee is served very hot" were
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said:
>
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
>
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
>
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
100F == 37C
125F == 52C
55C
> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> >
> > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
> >
> > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature.
> 165-190F is the
> > preferred
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
>
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
>
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
> preferred serving range. I
> How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it
> she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued
> McDonalds for that people would be more understainding...
How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether
or not McDonald's
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote:
> Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have
> this problem :-)
>
> [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption
> and flame wars].
Yes, PLEEZE!
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
> > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > > mcdonald's was unaware of
> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
example:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit),
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
> > > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
>
> Given the
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost
Bernd Petrovitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to
> list the patents and the
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 08:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>> will produce third-degree burns almost
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>>
>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>>
> > > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > > > often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
> > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > >
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >
> > > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > often feel they have to act accordingly.
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and "justice"
> system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
> country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
> sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
> graphics hardware.
Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent
on the
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> 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
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
> 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
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
[...]
> 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
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
[...]
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
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
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
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
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
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
graphics hardware.
Nope, not necessarily. Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent
on the concept
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember
On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is the
country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
spill hot coffee in
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 08:22 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
often feel they have to act accordingly. Remember this is
Bernd Petrovitsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
price for look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
infringement on a list of given patents so the patent holder has to
list the patents and the amount of my
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
Given the population size
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
example:
On 1/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 20:30:17 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven said:
2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
mcdonald's was unaware of the danger,
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee hot, but
*scalding*
On Tuesday January 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
I can very easily believe it. The US patent system and justice
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote:
Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have
this problem :-)
[We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption
and flame wars].
Yes, PLEEZE!
---
~Randy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
How many of them stuffed the cup between their legs though? I think it
she would have sqeezed the cup too hard and burned her hand and sued
McDonalds for that people would be more understainding...
How would what she did have any bearing on the key issue, which is whether
or not McDonald's
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I can cite
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature.
165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said:
The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
100F == 37C
125F == 52C
55C == 131F
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 15:01:56 PST, David Schwartz said:
There is simply no way you can argue that McDonald's failed to warn people
about the risks. The cup says hot on it,
Actually, the HOT on the cup and the sticker in the drive-through that
says Warning: Coffee is served very hot were added
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
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> > Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> > Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> > translate..
> >
> >
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> translate..
>
> Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we
> don't
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said:
> That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
> about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on
> with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
> work. If they had real IPR
Hi!
> >You're not alone, I think everybody who knows, how
> >things in a
> >computer work shares this view.
> ---
>
> Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that
> the board (and
> its hardware interfaces that the documentation would
> describe) involve
> IP licensed from a third
Hi!
You're not alone, I think everybody who knows, how
things in a
computer work shares this view.
---
Two of the specific arguments I've heard are (a) that
the board (and
its hardware interfaces that the documentation would
describe) involve
IP licensed from a third party, which
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said:
That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on
with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
work. If they had real IPR in
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
translate..
Why don't you release source? Because we don't believe in freedom, we
don't get it
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
translate..
Why don't
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
> Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
> translate..
That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from other companies
What makes you think they "get
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
they licensed from other
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
they licensed from other companies
What makes you think they get it?
In a
Why don't you release source? To protect the intellectual property.
Well, duh! That's why everyone holds back source. So allow me to
translate..
That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
about software IP they would release hardware docs and let us get on
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't
apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative
work of another in *functional* detail.
in fact, to get a Patent you are required to explain the
> Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
> patents or something similar that would prevent you from
> publishing results
> adn/or drivers (open source).
As I understand the issues, you have the right to reverse engineer hardware
except where the DMCA applies.
On 12/28/06, Rok Markovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
This is a pretty good resource:
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser,
disassembly of windows driver, etc.
Rok
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
Are there any restrictions in how you obtain information - signal analyser,
disassembly of windows driver, etc.
Rok
On 12/28/06, Rok Markovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
This is a pretty good resource:
Do we have a right to reverse engineer hardware, or they are protected by
patents or something similar that would prevent you from
publishing results
adn/or drivers (open source).
As I understand the issues, you have the right to reverse engineer hardware
except where the DMCA applies. I
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote:
Patents don't provide any ability to keep things secret. Copyright doesn't
apply to a creative work you made yourself, even if it describes the creative
work of another in *functional* detail.
in fact, to get a Patent you are required to explain the
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
.
The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should
have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and
clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the
Horst H. von Brand wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
.
The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should
have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and
clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You buy a phone for $200. The manufacturer only represents that it works
with CarrierCo. ...
You have the right to do what you like with the phone, of course. It's a
great doorstop and a reasonable paper weight. The manufacturer didn't
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
.
> The point is that any rights the manufacturer may have had to the car should
> have been sold along with the car, otherwise it's not a normal free and
> clear sale. A normal free and clear sale includes all rights to the item
> sold, except those
James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Let's summarize the current situation:
> 1) Hardware vendors don't have to tell us how to program their products,
> as long as they provide some way to use it (i.e. binary blob driver).
No. They have absolutely no obligation to tell you
> Again, while some of the car/house analogies may describe situations
> where the seller has not conveyed all the rights, the video card
> situation is completely different. You have the right to do what you
> like with it and the seller retains no rights. Lack of documentation
> is not an
On 12/26/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's really common sense. Imagine if you buy the right to use my car, but I
don't give you the key. Can I say, "yes, you have the right to use my car,
you bought that, but that doesn't mean I have to tell you how to use my
car."
---
I
Combined responses:
> > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> > That includes using the car to violate emission control measures.
> > If I didn't buy the right to use the car that way (insofar as
> > that
--- Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They
> are
> > just that - utter nonsense.
> >
> > And now lets stop the car nonsense :-)
>
> I agree, if you
--- James C Georgas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> > On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the
On Tue, 2006-26-12 at 03:20 -0800, Martin Knoblauch wrote:
> On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> > include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> > That includes using the car to violate
On 12/26/06, Martin Knoblauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are
just that - utter nonsense.
And now lets stop the car nonsense :-)
I agree, if you really want to talk about cars, I can relate the woes
I've heard from
On 12/25/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I bought the car from the manufacturer, it also must
> include any rights the manufacturer might have to the car's use.
> That includes using the car to violate emission control measures.
> If I didn't buy the right to use the car that
Oh, if only for Christmas - stop this stupid car comparisons. They are
just that - utter nonsense.
>> I have no idea why you assume that "having the right to do X"
implies
>> "must be told how to do X". The have the right (except as laws
>> prohibit it) to modify the car's systems, but (except
1 - 100 of 283 matches
Mail list logo
