> 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
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 Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said:
> 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, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said:
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 (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
>
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 (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said:
> So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers,
> it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers
> *hardware* companies distribute.
The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
[...]
> The argument that a hardware company usually
> invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's
> pitute about the software itself, they do care
> about the information the software contains
> about their hardware. The concern is
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
[...]
The argument that a hardware company usually
invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's
pitute about the software itself, they do care
about the information the software contains
about their hardware. The concern is that
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said:
So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers,
it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers
*hardware* companies distribute.
The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot about
--- Giuseppe Bilotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies
> here, not
> *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make
> money by selling
> *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in
> fact, they always
> distribute the 'software' they write
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote:
> For a professional developer of any software the decision of open
> sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems
> because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway.
> However a professional
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote:
For a professional developer of any software the decision of open
sourcing it is not easy. Just for fun developers have no problems
because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway.
However a professional
--- Giuseppe Bilotta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies
here, not
*software* companies. *Hardware* companies make
money by selling
*hardware*, not the software that drives it: in
fact, they always
distribute the 'software' they write (the
On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> Dear Linux Kernel ML,
>
> I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
> the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
>
> While, I understand and share
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
Dear Linux Kernel ML,
I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and
drivers. I fear
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
Dear Linux Kernel ML,
I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and
drivers. I fear
On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
Dear Linux Kernel ML,
I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
While, I understand and share your
86 matches
Mail list logo
