Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-30 Thread Alan Cox
> I'll assume for the moment that I'm liable to suffer some form of brain > h=E6morrhage and go along with this dastardly plan - so enlighten me. H= > ow > would I conspire with M-Systems to do so? Not a lot. Even if you joined M-Systems you could make no difference. In fact as it stands now M-Sy

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-30 Thread David Woodhouse
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > See section 7 of the GPL. "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." But I can, so I may. See t

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-30 Thread David Woodhouse
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, Mark Spencer wrote: > Now firstly, let's eliminate the ISDN red-herring from consideration > because the authors of the code do not place any additional restrictions > on the GPL whatsoever, they simply bring it to your attention that using > an un-certified ISDN stack may be

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-28 Thread Jeff V. Merkey
Alan Cox wrote: > > > In this case, Debian (or any organization who isn't big enough not to fear > > M-systems) may not ship the standard kernel because it has additional patent > > restrictions. > > Why. There are no distribution restrictions > > > There is a clear ability here for the autho

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-28 Thread Alan Cox
> In this case, Debian (or any organization who isn't big enough not to fear > M-systems) may not ship the standard kernel because it has additional patent > restrictions. Why. There are no distribution restrictions > There is a clear ability here for the author of the driver and m-systems to >

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-28 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Sat, Oct 28, 2000 at 05:24:19PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > The authors of the NTFL layer dont place any additional restrictions on your > use of the code either. They are merely warning you that if you use it in > some ways you are going to get your ass kicked by a third party. WHats the > differ

Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-28 Thread Alan Cox
> Now firstly, let's eliminate the ISDN red-herring from consideration > because the authors of the code do not place any additional restrictions > on the GPL whatsoever, they simply bring it to your attention that using > an un-certified ISDN stack may be illegal in some countries. The authors o

Linux-2.4.0-test9 not Open Source

2000-10-28 Thread Mark Spencer
I've been looking at the MTD (memory technology device) additions to the linux 2.4.0 kernels. In particular I'm very interested in the DiskOnChip 2000 and NFTL drivers. However, as terribly useful as this driver is, was I the only one who caught the following notice at the top of the driver sour