Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-04-01 Thread devzero
Linux and OpenSource is evolution - go on and create your closed source drivers and do your own closed-source fork - go on and create your own little homo neanderthalensis ! ___ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-04-01 Thread devzero
Linux and OpenSource is evolution - go on and create your closed source drivers and do your own closed-source fork - go on and create your own little homo neanderthalensis ! ___ SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Alan
> Macrovision. Just about every vendors hardware can do Macrovision. They just forget to include the Macrovision control in published code, or hide it in a tiny extra driver (Matrox) or in the BIOS switching firmware (SiS) > Just so you know I'm not making this up: I know where the "defeat >

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a > simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Yes, I rather chuckled at the irony as I wrote that one.

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you. Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ? No, it's a way of saying "yes, there are deliberate performance limits in the driver code, but they're harder to explain

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you. Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ? No, it's a way of saying yes, there are deliberate performance limits in the driver code, but they're harder to explain than

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Yes, I rather chuckled at the irony as I wrote that one. :-)

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-26 Thread Alan
Macrovision. Just about every vendors hardware can do Macrovision. They just forget to include the Macrovision control in published code, or hide it in a tiny extra driver (Matrox) or in the BIOS switching firmware (SiS) Just so you know I'm not making this up: I know where the defeat

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread D. Hazelton
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in > > headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can > > copy those functions into their proprietary module. > > Yes, it does. Have you read

RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread David Schwartz
> > Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most > > practical way > > to write his driver. > Most practical way to get something Windows compatible is to pirate > Windows; I do not think that gives me permission to do so. This is comparing apples to oranges because Windows has

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Trent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread D. Hazelton
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include > is not thereby a "derivative work" of the kernel, > no matter how many entrypoints are labeled EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL or >

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2007-02-25 03:33:38, David Schwartz wrote: > > > But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include > > from his > > binary-only part? > > Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way > to write his driver. Most practical way to get something

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
> Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you. Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ? Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Stephen Clark
Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains > that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt > to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive > measure against having their retail

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
> of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains > that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt > to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive > measure against having their retail margins destroyed by nitwits who > take out all

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds two hooks "void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping()", he can get away with that. But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include from his

RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread David Schwartz
> But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include > from his > binary-only part? Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way to write his driver. > I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And that's what > embedded people are doing; I

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! > Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and > what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that > compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense. > Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and > readable. > > I've

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Pavel Machek
Hi! Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and readable. I've drafted

RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread David Schwartz
But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h from his binary-only part? Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way to write his driver. I believe situation in this case changes a lot... And

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, but this is not realistic. I agree that if Evil Linker only adds two hooks void pop_server_starting(), void pop_server_stopping(), he can get away with that. But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive measure against having their retail margins destroyed by nitwits who take out all the

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/25/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: of other places too. Especially when the graphics chip maker explains that keeping their driver source code closed isn't really an attempt to hide their knowledge under a bushel basket. It's a defensive measure against having their retail margins

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Stephen Clark
Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
Busy-wait loops were a rhetorical flourish, I grant you. Thats a complicated fancy way of saying you were talking rubbish ? Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Pavel Machek
On Sun 2007-02-25 03:33:38, David Schwartz wrote: But... how does situation change when Evil Linker does #include pop3/gpl_header_file_with_some_inline_functions.h from his binary-only part? Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way to write his

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread D. Hazelton
On Sunday 25 February 2007 06:54, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 2/25/07, Pavel Machek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip But a 20KLoC 3-D graphics driver that happens to #include linux/whatever.h is not thereby a derivative work of the kernel, no matter how many entrypoints are labeled

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/26/07, Michael K. Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's fun to blame everything on Redmond, but how about a simpler explanation? Says the master of conspiracy. Trent - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL

RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread David Schwartz
Right, but *why* is he doing that? The answer: It is the most practical way to write his driver. Most practical way to get something Windows compatible is to pirate Windows; I do not think that gives me permission to do so. This is comparing apples to oranges because Windows has an

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-25 Thread D. Hazelton
On Sunday 25 February 2007 19:47, David Schwartz wrote: snip Similary, there are many ways to write inline functions present in headers, and no, embedded developer being lazy does not mean they can copy those functions into their proprietary module. Yes, it does. Have you read Lexmark v.

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >... > The only way GPL'ed code can be become copyrighted by the FSF is if > you explicitly sign a copyright statement >... And even this is only possible if permitted by copyright law. E.g. German copyright law explicitely states

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-24 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:45:22AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: ... The only way GPL'ed code can be become copyrighted by the FSF is if you explicitly sign a copyright statement ... And even this is only possible if permitted by copyright law. E.g. German copyright law explicitely states that

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI > today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:26 + Alan wrote: > > me off, and in the meantime, you know where to find your keyboard's > > "stick my fingers in my ears and shout la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" key. > > :-) > > I was hoping you'd take the pseudo-legal noise elsewhere. Yes. I find it interesting,

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
> Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI > today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded (including the port to Linux of

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K > for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you take the microsoft windows source code and compile it yourself > believe me you will get sued if you ship the resulting binaries and you > will lose in court. "misappropriation of trade secrets" as well as copyright infringement But

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread D. Hazelton
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote: > > As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* > > the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline > > library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states > > (in > > Not that

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread D. Hazelton
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote: > But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that > the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk. > > - Ted Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Theodore Tso
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:17:16PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote: > Since I tailor the license I apply to code I produce to meet the needs of the > person or entity I am writing it for, I've never run into this. In truth, the > LGPL is, IMHO, a piece of garbage. (as is the GPL - if you release code

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
> compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K > for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all which took about 30 minutes of brain time

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
> As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the > GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline > library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in Not that I can see no, but you could take this to a list with

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Jon K Hellan
D. Hazelton wrote: (as is the GPL - if you release code under the GPL you no longer have a legal right to it. Note the following text that appears in the GPL: " We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Jon K Hellan
D. Hazelton wrote: (as is the GPL - if you release code under the GPL you no longer have a legal right to it. Note the following text that appears in the GPL: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in Not that I can see no, but you could take this to a list with lawyers

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all which took about 30 minutes of brain time

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Theodore Tso
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:17:16PM -0500, D. Hazelton wrote: Since I tailor the license I apply to code I produce to meet the needs of the person or entity I am writing it for, I've never run into this. In truth, the LGPL is, IMHO, a piece of garbage. (as is the GPL - if you release code

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread D. Hazelton
On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:45, Theodore Tso wrote: snip But saying that just by licensing your code under the GPL means that the FSF owns your code? That's just crazy talk. - Ted Actually, I've replied with private messages to several mails

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread D. Hazelton
On Thursday 22 February 2007 09:10, Alan wrote: As a side note: The distinct wording of the GPL actually *invalidates* the GNU/FSF claim that dynamically linking a work with, say, the readline library, means the work is a derivative of said library. The GPL states (in Not that I can see

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you take the microsoft windows source code and compile it yourself believe me you will get sued if you ship the resulting binaries and you will lose in court. misappropriation of trade secrets as well as copyright infringement But that's

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: compiler people caught on to the economic opportunity. Ever pay $5K for a CD full of GNU binaries for a commercial UNIX? I did, after No because I just downloaded them. Much easier and since they are GPL I was allowed to do so, then rebuilt them all

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Alan
Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded (including the port to Linux of Algorithmics

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Randy Dunlap
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:18:26 + Alan wrote: me off, and in the meantime, you know where to find your keyboard's stick my fingers in my ears and shout la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you key. :-) I was hoping you'd take the pseudo-legal noise elsewhere. Yes. I find it interesting, but it

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-22 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/22/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh yeah? For IRIX in 1991? Or for that matter, for Linux/ARM EABI today? Tell me, how many of what sort of users do you support Solaris (NTL - very large ISP/Telco), Dec server 5000 (for fun), Irix (and linux cross for Irix removal), MIPS embedded

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, on re-reading the GPL, I see exactly why they made that pair of exceptions. Where it's quite evident that a small to mid scale parsers that could have been written *without* the use of Bison is clearly a non-derivative work - Bison was

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: " We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software." --IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread D. Hazelton
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer > > generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their > > inclusion in the source file that

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully > shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have > given you the compiler he compiled it

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread D. Hazelton
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully > shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have > given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source > code is a nice piece

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source code is a nice piece of literature but of no engineering utility; but that's the situation

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a "derivative work". Far from it. Try reading to the end. We all know that #include is mostly non copyrightable, so I mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may not

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread David Lang
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote: But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed my POP server too! That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL. And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to need to understand how a lawsuit for

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Nuno Silva
Michael K. Edwards wrote: > Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and > what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that > compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense. > Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and >

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a "translation" in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and readable. I've drafted summaries

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Helge Hafting
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk of the code

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Helge Hafting
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a need for secret source code, stuff most of it in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk of the code and

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and readable. I've drafted summaries

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Nuno Silva
Michael K. Edwards wrote: Actually, it's quite clear under US law what a derivative work is and what rights you need to distribute it, and equally clear that compiling code does not make a translation in a copyright sense. Read Micro Star v. Formgen -- it's good law and it's funny and

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread David Lang
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Michael K. Edwards wrote: But wait, you say -- the Evil Linker modified, copied, and distributed my POP server too! That makes him subject to the terms of the GPL. And you're right; but to understand what that means, you're going to need to understand how a lawsuit for

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, Nuno Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see that your argument is all about the defenition of a derivative work. Far from it. Try reading to the end. We all know that #include anything.h is mostly non copyrightable, so I mostly agree that some - very very simple - modules may

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source code is a nice piece of literature but of no engineering utility; but that's the situation

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread D. Hazelton
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote: I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have given you the compiler he compiled it with, wihout which the source code is a nice piece of

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 21 February 2007 19:28, Michael K. Edwards wrote: I think you just misread. I said that the Evil Linker has cheerfully shipped the source code of the modified POP server. He may not have given you the compiler he compiled it

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread D. Hazelton
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:05, Michael K. Edwards wrote: On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Related to that... Though a parser generated by Bison and a tokenizer generated by Flex both contain large chunks of GPL'd code, their inclusion in the source file that is to

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/22/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software. --IE: Once you release the code under the GPL, it becomes the

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-21 Thread Michael K. Edwards
On 2/21/07, D. Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, on re-reading the GPL, I see exactly why they made that pair of exceptions. Where it's quite evident that a small to mid scale parsers that could have been written *without* the use of Bison is clearly a non-derivative work - Bison was

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have a need for "secret" source code, stuff most of it > in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their > open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk > of the code and the cleverness is

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > Flame bait alert: > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see > from the "users" view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual >

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Bernd Petrovitsch
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: > > Flame bait alert: > > I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and > > I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see > >

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Helge Hafting
v j wrote: Assuming these need not be GPL, I have a problem with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and the general trend in the direction of making proprietary drivers harder on companies. Our drivers use basic interfaces in the kernel like open, read, write, ioctl, semaphores, interrupts, timers etc. This is

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Helge Hafting
v j wrote: You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a translation). Thanks, all for the discussion. I

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Bernd Petrovitsch
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 21:19 -0800, v j wrote: [...] > Now it would also be worthwhile to contemplate what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL > does to this popularity. I don't know. I am just giving you my The big problem with such discussions (as this) are: It is a law decision which license applies in which

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Nick Piggin
v j wrote: Now the popularity of Linux is exploding in the embedded space. Nobody talks of VxWorks and OSE anymore. It is all Linux. Perhaps it would be a worthwhile experiment to study this surge in popularity. I am not an expert, but perhaps the reason is "it works so goddamn well and has a

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't think anyone wants to read that. I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is ok with me posting this, so enjoy: http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html There ya go. Trent - To

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread v j
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from spouting conspiracy stuff and,

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread v j
On 2/19/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from spouting conspiracy stuff and,

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/20/07, Trent Waddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think anyone wants to read that. I guess that was a stupid thing to say. Ok, fine people, Michael is ok with me posting this, so enjoy: http://rtfm.insomnia.org/~qg/chat-with-michael-k-edwards.html There ya go. Trent - To

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Nick Piggin
v j wrote: Now the popularity of Linux is exploding in the embedded space. Nobody talks of VxWorks and OSE anymore. It is all Linux. Perhaps it would be a worthwhile experiment to study this surge in popularity. I am not an expert, but perhaps the reason is it works so goddamn well and has a

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Bernd Petrovitsch
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 21:19 -0800, v j wrote: [...] Now it would also be worthwhile to contemplate what EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL does to this popularity. I don't know. I am just giving you my The big problem with such discussions (as this) are: It is a law decision which license applies in which

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Helge Hafting
v j wrote: You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a translation). Thanks, all for the discussion. I

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Helge Hafting
v j wrote: Assuming these need not be GPL, I have a problem with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and the general trend in the direction of making proprietary drivers harder on companies. Our drivers use basic interfaces in the kernel like open, read, write, ioctl, semaphores, interrupts, timers etc. This is

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Bernd Petrovitsch
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 10:14 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: Flame bait alert: I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see from the

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 12:00:51 +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch said: Flame bait alert: I heard a talk from an Austrian lawyer an according to his believes (and I don't know if he is the only one or if there lots of) one must see from the users view if the GPL spreads over or not (and the usual

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-20 Thread Jan-Benedict Glaw
On Tue, 2007-02-20 15:36:56 +0100, Helge Hafting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have a need for secret source code, stuff most of it in userspace. Make the drivers truly minimal; perhaps their open/closed status won't matter that much when the bulk of the code and the cleverness is kept safe

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-19 Thread Trent Waddington
Just in case anyone cares, after speaking with Michael for a few hours I've found he's not nearly as abrasive as this mailing list banter might suggest. He makes some good arguments once you stop him from spouting conspiracy stuff and, although I don't agree with all of them, I think he has some

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-19 Thread v j
You are trying to cram this in a simple yes or no box, and it just doesn't fit. There are questions nobody knows the answers to (such as what rights you need to distribute a derivative work or whether compiling code makes a translation). Thanks, all for the discussion. I certainly learnt a lot.

RE: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-19 Thread David Schwartz
Combined responses > On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is no legal meaning to "combining" two works of authorship under > > the Berne Convention or any national implementation thereof. If you > > "compile" or "collect" them, you're in one area of law, and if you

Re: GPL vs non-GPL device drivers

2007-02-19 Thread Trent Waddington
On 2/20/07, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And for those reading along at home, _surely_ you understand the meanings of "ambiguities in an offer of contract must be construed against the offeror", "'derivative work' and 'license' are terms of art in copyright law", and "not a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >