Hi all,
First, I do not, and did not, have access to the proprietary OS, which
has been referred to. Otherwise, I would have checked it.
Second, I appreciate that my questions and tentative inferences may not
have been perfect, given that I did not have the complete facts, but I
did try to
Hi all,
First, I do not, and did not, have access to the proprietary OS, which
has been referred to. Otherwise, I would have checked it.
Second, I appreciate that my questions and tentative inferences may not
have been perfect, given that I did not have the complete facts, but I
did try to
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 18:32 +, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
> > > we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
> > > 2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
> > > prevail
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 18:32 +, Alan Cox wrote:
1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
prevail on RTS to
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:13 (EST) on Sunday:
> First, I hope that we can tone down the arguments about whether the
> use of Linux APIs and headers automatically turns a program into a
> derivative work of Linux. I think that argument has been largely
> debunked in the U.S. in the recent decision
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500
"Theodore Ts'o" wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:15:02AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> > Andy's initial email ended with the request: "Please explain." Thus,
> > Andy's email seemed designed to seek facts, which I think is a
> > reasonable and good thing
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:15:02AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Andy's initial email ended with the request: "Please explain." Thus,
> Andy's email seemed designed to seek facts, which I think is a
> reasonable and good thing to do here. Meanwhile, the facts *still*
> aren't clear here yet.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:15:02AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Andy's initial email ended with the request: Please explain. Thus,
Andy's email seemed designed to seek facts, which I think is a
reasonable and good thing to do here. Meanwhile, the facts *still*
aren't clear here yet.
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:08:43 -0500
Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu wrote:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:15:02AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Andy's initial email ended with the request: Please explain. Thus,
Andy's email seemed designed to seek facts, which I think is a
reasonable and good
Lawrence Rosen wrote at 17:13 (EST) on Sunday:
First, I hope that we can tone down the arguments about whether the
use of Linux APIs and headers automatically turns a program into a
derivative work of Linux. I think that argument has been largely
debunked in the U.S. in the recent decision in
On 12-11-11 04:34 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 08:50 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi Lawrence,
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>> So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
>>> wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
>>>
Hi Lawrence,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>> So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
>> wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
>> of the complaints publically I guess probably a triple damages
Alan Cox wrote:
> So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
> wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
> of the complaints publically I guess probably a triple damages sized
> problem. But that's one for your lawyers and whatever opinion
> > 1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
> > we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
> > 2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
> > prevail on RTS to accept.
> >
> > Because any further discussion
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 10:15 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> James wrote:
> >> [I'd like to see] a genuine public apology for the libel...
> >> Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of
> this
> >> nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction.
Hey that's a complete
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:34:16AM +, James Bottomley wrote:
>> Anybody who does enforcement will tell you that you begin with first
>> hand proof of a violation. That means obtain the product and make
>> sure it's been modified and that a request for corresponding source
>> fails.
I agree
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:34:16AM +, James Bottomley wrote:
> Anybody who does enforcement will tell you that you begin with first
> hand proof of a violation. That means obtain the product and make sure
> it's been modified and that a request for corresponding source fails.
> In this case,
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 08:50 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
> not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
> EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
> full Vmware vSphere 5
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 08:50 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
full Vmware vSphere 5 VAAI
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:34:16AM +, James Bottomley wrote:
Anybody who does enforcement will tell you that you begin with first
hand proof of a violation. That means obtain the product and make sure
it's been modified and that a request for corresponding source fails.
In this case,
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 09:34:16AM +, James Bottomley wrote:
Anybody who does enforcement will tell you that you begin with first
hand proof of a violation. That means obtain the product and make
sure it's been modified and that a request for corresponding source
fails.
I agree with
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 10:15 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
James wrote:
[I'd like to see] a genuine public apology for the libel...
Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of
this
nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction.
Hey that's a complete
1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
prevail on RTS to accept.
Because any further discussion of
Alan Cox wrote:
So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
of the complaints publically I guess probably a triple damages sized
problem. But that's one for your lawyers and whatever opinion they
Hi Lawrence,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
wildly improbable) or you have a problem and since you are aware
of the complaints publically I guess probably a
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Julian Calaby julian.cal...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lawrence,
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen lro...@rosenlaw.com wrote:
Alan Cox wrote:
So either your work is truely not derivative of the kernel (which I find
wildly improbable) or you have a
On 12-11-11 04:34 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 08:50 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in
This thread is certainly fascinating. As someone who has enforced the
GPL for over a decade, and who coordinates a coalition of Linux
developers who do GPL enforcement, I am very concerned about any
accusation of GPL violation, and I hope that this situation can be
resolved reasonably and
This thread is certainly fascinating. As someone who has enforced the
GPL for over a decade, and who coordinates a coalition of Linux
developers who do GPL enforcement, I am very concerned about any
accusation of GPL violation, and I hope that this situation can be
resolved reasonably and
On 11/08/2012 06:08 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> Support for certified VAAI is part of our commercial target core. The
> target core constitutes a stand-alone kernel subsystem of which we are
> the sole copyright owners. In addition, our target contains a number of
> backend drivers, of
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:52:19 -0800
Andy Grover wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 03:03 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I fail to understand the maintainer question however. If you were trying
> > to block people adding target features that competed that would be a
> > different thing.
>
> You think it's ok for us
On 11/09/2012 03:03 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> I fail to understand the maintainer question however. If you were trying
> to block people adding target features that competed that would be a
> different thing.
You think it's ok for us to have an unrepentant GPL violator as a
subsystem maintainer??
If
> For our commercial target core, we only use Linux kernel symbols that
> are not marked as GPL. In addition, we define the API between the target
And this has what meaning ?
The Linux kernel is a GPL work, any derivative work is a GPL work. The
symbol tags are just a guidance.
You do not have
For our commercial target core, we only use Linux kernel symbols that
are not marked as GPL. In addition, we define the API between the target
And this has what meaning ?
The Linux kernel is a GPL work, any derivative work is a GPL work. The
symbol tags are just a guidance.
You do not have
On 11/09/2012 03:03 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
I fail to understand the maintainer question however. If you were trying
to block people adding target features that competed that would be a
different thing.
You think it's ok for us to have an unrepentant GPL violator as a
subsystem maintainer??
If
On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:52:19 -0800
Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/09/2012 03:03 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
I fail to understand the maintainer question however. If you were trying
to block people adding target features that competed that would be a
different thing.
You think it's
On 11/08/2012 06:08 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Support for certified VAAI is part of our commercial target core. The
target core constitutes a stand-alone kernel subsystem of which we are
the sole copyright owners. In addition, our target contains a number of
backend drivers, of which we
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 13:22 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
> On 11/08/2012 12:05 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > Accusing us of violating GPL is a serious legal claim.
> >
> > In fact, we are not violating GPL. In short, this is because we wrote
> > the code you are referring to (the SCSI
On 11/08/2012 12:05 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> Accusing us of violating GPL is a serious legal claim.
>
> In fact, we are not violating GPL. In short, this is because we wrote
> the code you are referring to (the SCSI target core in our commercial
> RTS OS product), we have exclusive
>> ...and then turn around and submit it to Nick since he's the target
>> subsystem maintainer? Nick is probably the one who wrote it!
>>
>> I'm happy to do that, but we should recognize something is seriously
>> skewed when the person nominally in charge of the in-kernel code also
>> has a vested
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 08:57 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 05:57 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> >> I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
> >> I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
> >> source to their
On 11/07/2012 05:57 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
>> I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
>> I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
>> source to their customers upon request.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Assuming the GPL
On 11/07/2012 05:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Andy Grover wrote:
>> Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
>> not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
>> EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order
On 11/07/2012 05:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com wrote:
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI
On 11/07/2012 05:57 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
source to their customers upon request.
Not quite.
Assuming the GPL applies, and
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 08:57 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
On 11/07/2012 05:57 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
source to their customers
...and then turn around and submit it to Nick since he's the target
subsystem maintainer? Nick is probably the one who wrote it!
I'm happy to do that, but we should recognize something is seriously
skewed when the person nominally in charge of the in-kernel code also
has a vested interest in
On 11/08/2012 12:05 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Accusing us of violating GPL is a serious legal claim.
In fact, we are not violating GPL. In short, this is because we wrote
the code you are referring to (the SCSI target core in our commercial
RTS OS product), we have exclusive
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 13:22 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
On 11/08/2012 12:05 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
Accusing us of violating GPL is a serious legal claim.
In fact, we are not violating GPL. In short, this is because we wrote
the code you are referring to (the SCSI target core
On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
source to their customers upon request.
Not quite.
Assuming the GPL applies, and that they have modified the code, then
they must
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Andy Grover wrote:
> Nick,
>
> Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
> not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
> EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
> full Vmware vSphere 5
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
full Vmware vSphere 5 VAAI support.
http://www.risingtidesystems.com/storage.html
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
full Vmware vSphere 5 VAAI support.
http://www.risingtidesystems.com/storage.html
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Andy Grover agro...@redhat.com wrote:
Nick,
Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are
not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the
EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim
full Vmware
On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
source to their customers upon request.
Not quite.
Assuming the GPL applies, and that they have modified the code, then
they must
56 matches
Mail list logo
