On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
[..]
Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What
he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
the only ones who can decide whether or not to
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Realy can't or don't want (?)
So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
allow if not incorporate
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]
Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another
license which will allow use CDDL code just
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]
Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument
was allways
On Sunday 11 March 2007 16:35:50 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Mar 11 2007 22:15, Cong WANG wrote:
Another question is about NULL. AFAIK, in user space, using NULL is
better than directly using 0 in C. In kernel, I know it used its own
NULL, which may be defined as ((void*)0), but it's _still_
In checking a make allmodconfig I noticed that the apm device
(arch/i386/kernel/apm.c) is still using the old pm_send_all setup - I know
the fix is to add suspend/resume hooks but the apm code hasn't been touched
since 2002 and isn't using the new device API (it doesn't even register,
AFAICT,
On Saturday 12 January 2008 04:41:21 Harald Dunkel wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:02:53 +0100,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
Hm... Just to be sure, try the patch below. It's a clean up patch
that I'd like to apply later.
Sorry, no sound.
OK, but
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
I
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:52:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.
http://www.conitech.it/conitech/ita/risorse.asp?cod=CN402USB
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE(GPL), IIRC.
That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their
driver just to prevent the module loader
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE(GPL
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
In other words EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL isn't his idea of a good legal idea,
but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
code. (In addition, he
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
Hi Daniel,
It makes no difference if you
distribute the GPL library with it or not.
If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
and
And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
material in
After doing any build in the kernel (last attempt was an allmodconfig)
I've tried to build the 'vm' tool in tools/vm and the build fails -
looks to be fallout from the uapi header work.
[madman@localhost tools]$ make V=1 vm
make -C vm/
make[1]: Entering directory
-page-flags.h: No such file or directory
Reported-by: Daniel Hazelton dshadoww...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com
cc: Fengguang Wu fengguang...@intel.com
---
tools/vm/page-types.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/vm/page
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel.
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
- his code
is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
and was only
covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
BSD-License
only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
about.
Actually it is not.
Dual
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone.
Not after the licence has been
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
The license applies to the copyright holder
Of course not.
I'll take this at face value - I might have mis-parsed
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
failing to act in another. We need not act in every
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The fact
remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
license has
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a
specific person or group of people
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Wrong - I said You can't complain about Person A doing X when
you let Person
B do X without complaint.
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
Chris Friesen writes:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have
On Sunday 22 July 2007 18:03:06 Bartek wrote:
2007/7/22, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
00:1f.1 0101: 8086:27df (rev 02)
Ok, this controller is supported.
Did you forgot about CONFIG_PATA_MPIIX=y?
MPIIX is for early Intel laptop (pentium era).
If the chip is in AHCI mode then
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:47:49 -0700 Andrew Morton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More sophisticated testing is needed - there's something in
ext3-tools which will mmap, page in and hold
On Friday 27 July 2007 14:16:32 Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Updatedb or another process that uses the FS heavily runs on a users
256MB P3-800 (when it is idle) and the VFS caches grow, causing memory
pressure that causes other applications to be swapped
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:08:44 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:45 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
So hrm. Are we sure that updatedb is the problem
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:29:19 Andi Kleen wrote:
Any faults in that reasoning?
GNU sort uses a merge sort with temporary files on disk. Not sure
how much it keeps in memory during that, but it's probably less
than 150MB. At some point the dirty limit should kick in and write back the
data
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says Its treating a
symptom, so it can't go
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Questions about it:
Q) Does swap-prefetch
On Saturday 28 July 2007 17:06:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:00:22 Ray Lee wrote:
On 7/29/07, Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the problem is reading stuff back in from swap at the *same time*
that the application is reading stuff from some user file system, and if
that user file system is on the same drive as the
On Monday 30 July 2007 14:35:13 Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
snip
Ok, lets kill the message. As Alois Nešpor also saw, that's fixed up by
Yenta, so PCI does not have to warn about it. PCI could still warn about it
if is_cardbus is 0 in that instance of pci_scan_bridge(), but so far I have
not seen a
On Friday 27 April 2007 07:57:58 Marat Buharov wrote:
On 4/27/07, Parav K Pandit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DISCLAIMER:
This message (including attachment if any) is confidential and may be
privileged. Before opening attachments please check them for viruses and
defects. MindTree Consulting
On Friday 27 April 2007 21:44:48 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, 28 April 2007 03:12, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
It's doubly bad, because that idiocy has also infected s2ram. Again,
another thing that really makes no sense at all - and we
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:36:33 Jeff Garzik wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Hello!
It have come to
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:42:47 Gabriel C wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Another problem is one I wasn't able to find any kind of trigger for,
other than just running XChat. Every so often XChat would seem to freeze
- but if run from the command line, switching to that terminal window
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
Hi,
I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer is
failing to initialise:
snip
Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
pretty much impossible to test for
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
snip
@@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:08:45 Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:22 -0500,
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Monday 14 January 2008 06:04:20 Takashi Iwai wrote:
snip
Could this have anything to do with the following messages I've seen
when trying -rc7
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 17:15:42 John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
If I put some heavy load on the iwl3945, then the network connection
gets stuck after a some time. To fix it I have to reload the module.
Can you quantify this a bit
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:10:34 Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
Yes, exactly two of them. One is non-trivial to get rid of - it's
used for encoding of filename before we write it,
Why can't we do just
UDF: Optimize stack usage
Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina
On 07/06/2012 11:32 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
Acked-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko
andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com
Cc: Kyungmin Park
I don't see anything obviously wrong here...
Reviewed-By: Daniel Hazelton dshadoww...@gmail.com
On 12/20/2012 02:11 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sasha.le...@oracle.com
---
tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions
On Sunday 10 June 2007 08:45:41 Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
I presume the heirs of the dead people could change the license. And if
they have no heir, then there is no-one to sue for breach of copyright,
so I assume the copyright lapses.
In most of the law
On Sunday 10 June 2007 09:40:23 Alan Cox wrote:
But I think this is largely academic. You only need a fairly small
number of fairly significant contributors to say no and the rest of
the process would be pointless. And at last count, the number of
kernel people who were not keen on GPLv3
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 07:34:09 Simon Arlott wrote:
On Tue, June 12, 2007 18:32, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 12 2007 10:04, Roland Dreier wrote:
+/*
+ * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its
process + * limit. it alerts administrator about
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that.
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:35:41 Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a tit-for-tat license, and
you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
One could even add that tit-for-tat appears to be the
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
snip
The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
says that what Tivo did was against the spirit. That's *bullshit*.
Oh, good, let's take this one.
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:14:47 Neil Brown wrote:
On Wednesday June 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1: Sheeple (n): People that act like sheep - ie: they cannot think or
form opinions for themselves and always look to someone else for their
thoughts and parrot the opinions of some trusted
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
find
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
So, TiVo
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe.
Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a
point, or are you like that all the time? ;-)
Nope
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:16:19 Alan Cox wrote:
Only courts of law can do that.
Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did
is
Maybe half a brain can, but anyone with a whole brain can assure you its
a bit more complex and you are wrong..
version of it
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:04:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't
attempt to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does.
It doesn't cover hardware, in the same way
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on
their hardware. And they have that right
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:56:40 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've never had a reason to want to change the way any device like a TiVO
works. So I can't comment on this.
Have you never wanted to improve any aspect of the software in your
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:39:13 Michael Gerdau wrote:
In Germany, not America. I should have qualified my statement to make it
clear I mean In America. Sorry about the confusion.
You shouldn't say America when you mean the US.
Sorry, I slipped. I'm still trying to rid myself of the
On Thursday 14 June 2007 02:36:12 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote
On Thursday 14 June 2007 04:37:55 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using
On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:20:34 Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
Reality check:
Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
required to run the
On Thursday 14 June 2007 12:06:31 Kevin Fox wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 20:42 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
SNIP
Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:26:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, well... In the case of Windos and other proprietary OS's
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:53:47 Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
Software in it.
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
snip
So let's look at that section 6 that you talk about, and quote the
relevant parts, will we:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein.
and then let's look
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:46:36 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
Do you need anything else?
No, I'm quite happy that this is
On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:42:44 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Giving back in kind is obvious. I give you source code to do with as
you see fit. I just expect you to give back
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:19:51 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every
Licensee had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing
your ethics and morals on people - and isn't
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
somewhat sarcastic
And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or
other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only
people that have
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:39:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
snip
And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
you) and refraining from providing the corresponding sources to that
derived work (the key
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they
make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm not
going to get into arguments
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:35:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release
improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge
those improvements if I want to.
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Chris Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*AND* the GPL has never been about making the source available to
everyone - just to those
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:43:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
snip
So let's look at that section 6 that you talk about, and quote the
relevant parts, will we:
You may
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
What rights did they give to downstream recipients of the object code
version? *EXACTLY* those they received from the GPLv2.
Doing the e-mail equivalent of yelling about this will not change the
Sorry, I wasn't
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused
about how software licenses work.
the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
the Tivo box
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:22:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
any fscking thing.
Ok, lemme try again:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
*SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.
What matters to me is that, when the GPL says you can't impose further
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:04:37 Michael Poole wrote:
Daniel Hazelton writes:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
The fundamental reason for this is that neither the executable code
nor the digital signature serves the desired function alone. The user
received a copy
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
I produce egg yolk. I give it to you under terms that say if you
pass
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
the hardware won't let him use the result of his efforts, and
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:19:24 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 14, 2007, Florin Malita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06/14/2007 05:39 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Back when GPLv2 was written, the right to run was never considered an
issue. It was taken for granted, because copyright didn't
On Friday 15 June 2007 01:38:41 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 15, 2007, Bron Gondwana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#define Dell CFG_FAVOURITE_VENDOR
A Dell desktop machine is a piece of hardware. The manufacturer has the
source code (hypothetically) to the BIOS. The BIOS is required for the
1 - 100 of 400 matches
Mail list logo
