> = Alan Cox
>> = [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
>>> = ??
>>> AFAICS, the firmware is just a file served up to the device as needed
>>> - no more a derivative work from the kernel than my homepage is a
>>> derivative work of Apache.
>>
>> Indeed. But if you compiled your home page, linked it into Emacs
James Sutherland wrote:
> Note the "derived work"; there is no way on this earth (or any other) that
> you could regard the device's firmware as being a "derived work" of the
> driver!
The same is true if you add another completely new and separately
written .c source file: the new file is not a
James Sutherland wrote:
Note the derived work; there is no way on this earth (or any other) that
you could regard the device's firmware as being a derived work of the
driver!
The same is true if you add another completely new and separately
written .c source file: the new file is not a
= Alan Cox
= [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
= ??
AFAICS, the firmware is just a file served up to the device as needed
- no more a derivative work from the kernel than my homepage is a
derivative work of Apache.
Indeed. But if you compiled your home page, linked it into Emacs to
display on
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> >It's also about the concept of boundaries - if you think that that
> >concept is not a legal one then why aren't all programs which are run
> >on top of a GPLed
Hi!
> > explicit about defining source code:
> > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> > making modifications to it.
>
> Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
> of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the
James Sutherland wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>> Larry McVoy wrote:
>> >On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>> >It's also about the concept of boundaries - if you think that that
>> >concept is not a legal one then why aren't all programs which
James Sutherland wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Larry McVoy wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
It's also about the concept of boundaries - if you think that that
concept is not a legal one then why aren't all programs which are run
on
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Larry McVoy wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
It's also about the concept of boundaries - if you think that that
concept is not a legal one then why aren't all programs which are run
on top of a GPLed kernel
Hi!
explicit about defining source code:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Copyright infringement would void the GPL, since it would involve
conversion (there's that fancy legal word for "steal" again) of someone
else's property into another form if you take someone's code and copy it.
Some things
Larry McVoy wrote:
>On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>> Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to
>> the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation
>Completely misses the point. THe point isn't about slavery, come
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to
> the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation
Completely misses the point. THe point isn't about slavery, come on, Adam,
it's about
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:30:20PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:30:38AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > By running the software covered by this license, you agree to
> > become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring
> > me coffee each morning
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:30:38AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> By running the software covered by this license, you agree to
> become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring
> me coffee each morning for the rest of my life, greating
> me with a "Good morning,
"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>
> >> On the question of whether this is nothing more than
> >> aggregation,
>
> >Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
>
> >> the firmware works intimately with the device
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:02:08AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> If you want to argue that a court will use a different definition
> of aggregation, then please explain why and quote that definition. Also,
> it's important not to forget the word "mere." If the combination is anything
>
Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> >"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>
> >> On the question of whether this is nothing more than
> >> aggregation,
...
[patent law definition of aggregation]
...
Well, I'm just an interested bystander. But having read the recent
lkml posts on
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> 1 : a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts
> or individuals
> 2 a : the collecting of units or parts into a mass or whole
> b : the condition of being so collected
>
> You have to argue that
Doug Ledford wrote:
>"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
>> On the question of whether this is nothing more than
>> aggregation,
>Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
>> the firmware works intimately with the device driver to
>> produce a unitary result.
> which is why I asked for RMS' opinion. He said that what is being done
> is clearly not "mere aggregation", and that such firmware should be
> moved out of the kernel (and even the tarball) to stop violating the
> GPL and make Linux be free software.
Given that the firmware is a seperate work
"Adam J. Richter" wrote:
> On the question of whether this is nothing more than
> aggregation,
Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
> the firmware works intimately with the device driver to
> produce a unitary result.
Irrelevant. All drivers work with
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
> > of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the implementation
> > you most certainly want more
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
> of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the implementation
> you most certainly want more than numeric values.
Nothing special IMHO. Look up
> Not to sound dense, but what part of the GPL prohibits a piece of GPL'd
> software from including non-GPL'd code? The GPL does explicitly state
> that you can't include it's software in proprietary code, but I don't
> recall seeing a provision that prohibits the other way around.
The same
Here's a surprise. I think the problems with the keyspan
copyrights may have sprung from an administrative error. I notice that
the copyright notices in
linux-2.4.*/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan_usa{26,28,49}msg.h, which look
GPL compatible to me, look as if they were intended for
Not to sound dense, but what part of the GPL prohibits a piece of GPL'd
software from including non-GPL'd code? The GPL does explicitly state
that you can't include it's software in proprietary code, but I don't
recall seeing a provision that prohibits the other way around.
It may not be in the
>> = Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
> = Albert D. Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I believe this infringinges the copyrights of the authors
>> of the code used in these drivers who released their code under GPL.
>> Alan Cox, has gone on a campaign claiming that this is "mere
On 25 May 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> We have comments in the code that state how j0 is build, and R0/S0
> come from some expansion:
> * Bessel function of the first and second kinds of order zero.
> * Method -- j0(x):
> *1. For tiny x, we use j0(x) = 1 - x^2/4 + x^4/64 - ...
> *
Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Should we file bug reports against glibc?
>
> invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
> Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
>
> tpi =
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Should we file bug reports against glibc?
>
> invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
> Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
Nope. Well-known constant.
> tpi
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Should we file bug reports against glibc?
invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
tpi = 6.36619772367581382433e-01,
R0/S0 on [0, 2.00]
I'm not sure what R and S are, but
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> explicit about defining source code:
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it.
Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
of constants of unknown
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:26:20PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> Sure- that's not BSD. You were speaking about all kinds of firmware, at least
> I thought you were. Must be too short on sleep.
Yes, I am. New-style BSD licenses are compatible with the GPL. As long
as a piece of firmware contains
Sure- that's not BSD. You were speaking about all kinds of firmware, at least
I thought you were. Must be too short on sleep.
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 10:00:15PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > It is my opinion, such as it is, that a BSD
Sure- that's not BSD. You were speaking about all kinds of firmware, at least
I thought you were. Must be too short on sleep.
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 10:00:15PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
It is my opinion, such as it is, that a BSD copyright
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 11:26:20PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
Sure- that's not BSD. You were speaking about all kinds of firmware, at least
I thought you were. Must be too short on sleep.
Yes, I am. New-style BSD licenses are compatible with the GPL. As long
as a piece of firmware contains
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
explicit about defining source code:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.
Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
of constants of unknown
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Should we file bug reports against glibc?
invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
tpi = 6.36619772367581382433e-01,
R0/S0 on [0, 2.00]
I'm not sure what R and S are, but
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Should we file bug reports against glibc?
invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
Nope. Well-known constant.
tpi =
Aaron Lehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Should we file bug reports against glibc?
invsqrtpi= 5.64189583547756279280e-01
Inverted square root of pi. Want to file a bug on Pi?
tpi = 6.36619772367581382433e-01,
R0/S0
On 25 May 2001, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
We have comments in the code that state how j0 is build, and R0/S0
come from some expansion:
* Bessel function of the first and second kinds of order zero.
* Method -- j0(x):
*1. For tiny x, we use j0(x) = 1 - x^2/4 + x^4/64 - ...
*2.
Not to sound dense, but what part of the GPL prohibits a piece of GPL'd
software from including non-GPL'd code? The GPL does explicitly state
that you can't include it's software in proprietary code, but I don't
recall seeing a provision that prohibits the other way around.
It may not be in the
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the implementation
you most certainly want more than numeric values.
Nothing special IMHO. Look up
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Erik Mouw wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:34:05AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
Erm... May I point you to the sysdep/libm-ieee754/e_j0.c? There's a bunch
of constants of unknown origin. If you want to modify the implementation
you most certainly want more than
Adam J. Richter wrote:
On the question of whether this is nothing more than
aggregation,
Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
the firmware works intimately with the device driver to
produce a unitary result.
Irrelevant. All drivers work with some
Doug Ledford wrote:
Adam J. Richter wrote:
On the question of whether this is nothing more than
aggregation,
Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
the firmware works intimately with the device driver to
produce a unitary result.
Irrelevant.
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Adam J. Richter wrote:
1 : a group, body, or mass composed of many distinct parts
or individuals
2 a : the collecting of units or parts into a mass or whole
b : the condition of being so collected
You have to argue that absolutely
Adam J. Richter wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Adam J. Richter wrote:
On the question of whether this is nothing more than
aggregation,
...
[patent law definition of aggregation]
...
Well, I'm just an interested bystander. But having read the recent
lkml posts on this issue, it
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:02:08AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
If you want to argue that a court will use a different definition
of aggregation, then please explain why and quote that definition. Also,
it's important not to forget the word mere. If the combination is anything
*more*
Adam J. Richter wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
Adam J. Richter wrote:
On the question of whether this is nothing more than
aggregation,
Yes, on that very question, I would argue it is a mere aggregation.
the firmware works intimately with the device driver to
produce a
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:30:38AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
By running the software covered by this license, you agree to
become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring
me coffee each morning for the rest of my life, greating
me with a Good morning,
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:30:20PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:30:38AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
By running the software covered by this license, you agree to
become my personal slave and you will be obligated to bring
me coffee each morning for the
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to
the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation
Completely misses the point. THe point isn't about slavery, come on, Adam,
it's about
Larry McVoy wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Contracts for slavery are specifically not enforceable due to
the 13th Amendment, and there is also a stronger question of formation
Completely misses the point. THe point isn't about slavery, come on,
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 07:34:57PM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
Copyright infringement would void the GPL, since it would involve
conversion (there's that fancy legal word for steal again) of someone
else's property into another form if you take someone's code and copy it.
Some things
which is why I asked for RMS' opinion. He said that what is being done
is clearly not mere aggregation, and that such firmware should be
moved out of the kernel (and even the tarball) to stop violating the
GPL and make Linux be free software.
Given that the firmware is a seperate work (try
Here's a surprise. I think the problems with the keyspan
copyrights may have sprung from an administrative error. I notice that
the copyright notices in
linux-2.4.*/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan_usa{26,28,49}msg.h, which look
GPL compatible to me, look as if they were intended for
Not to sound dense, but what part of the GPL prohibits a piece of GPL'd
software from including non-GPL'd code? The GPL does explicitly state
that you can't include it's software in proprietary code, but I don't
recall seeing a provision that prohibits the other way around.
The same thinbg
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:34:04PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> This message sparked a long thread on the debian-legal mailing list,
> which is long since dead. I am personally very curious about whether
> this has been resolved upstream. I consider it a very important issue,
> which is why I
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 01:59:08AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> If a driver writes 0x63f30e44 (4 bytes) to the card, no problem?
> Fine, how about 0x52e590a84fc8231e (8 bytes) then? You can see
> where this is leading I hope: 200 kB is perfectly fine.
Yes, I thought this way at first.
> From: "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:53:48 -0700
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h
>[...]
> I believe this infringinges the copyrights of the authors
> of the code used in these drivers
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 10:00:15PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> It is my opinion, such as it is, that a BSD copyright inside of a GPL package
> does not, per se, weaken the GPL. The BSD copyright is, in fact, the more
> permissive license. My reading of both licenses would have me believe
This message sparked a long thread on the debian-legal mailing list,
which is long since dead. I am personally very curious about whether
this has been resolved upstream. I consider it a very important issue,
which is why I asked for RMS' opinion. He said that what is being done
is clearly not
This message sparked a long thread on the debian-legal mailing list,
which is long since dead. I am personally very curious about whether
this has been resolved upstream. I consider it a very important issue,
which is why I asked for RMS' opinion. He said that what is being done
is clearly not
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 10:00:15PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
It is my opinion, such as it is, that a BSD copyright inside of a GPL package
does not, per se, weaken the GPL. The BSD copyright is, in fact, the more
permissive license. My reading of both licenses would have me believe that a
From: Adam J. Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 12:53:48 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h
[...]
I believe this infringinges the copyrights of the authors
of the code used in these drivers who released
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 01:59:08AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
If a driver writes 0x63f30e44 (4 bytes) to the card, no problem?
Fine, how about 0x52e590a84fc8231e (8 bytes) then? You can see
where this is leading I hope: 200 kB is perfectly fine.
Yes, I thought this way at first. However,
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:34:04PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
This message sparked a long thread on the debian-legal mailing list,
which is long since dead. I am personally very curious about whether
this has been resolved upstream. I consider it a very important issue,
which is why I asked
69 matches
Mail list logo
