Glynn Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What, are you kidding me? ;)
http://lwn.net/Articles/173209/
Stable: Interfaces classified as stable will not break 'for at least
two years', and probably quite a bit longer. The Linux system call
interface is classified in this way
This is
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and
target OpenSolaris!
Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the conversion?
I feel like not all of Linux kernel folks even understand the beauty of
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 12:16 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote:
ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and
target OpenSolaris!
Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the conversion?
I feel
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The real problem that I see is that people may call OpenSolaris a GPL
violating project even though there is no reason that would stand a
case on court.
Can we have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] please?
Feel free to create the
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
As a side note: for Linux kernel this code separation will *never*
work since Linux and its development team doesn't care about such a
drivers. Maintaining separated drivers for Linux kernel is extremely
painful
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and
Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PM Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the
Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't
be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't
much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris source
tree unless someone discovers how to combine GPL
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't
be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't
much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris
Artem Kachitchkine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code.
Not all code is incoming, some is simply out there. E.g. one question
that
comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the
author's web page as
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that one can't GPL magic numbers or
algorithms, so provided that you don't use any of the GPLed code, I
think you should be OK.
I am not sure about the US Copyright system.
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 16:22 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't
be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 13:29 -0800, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
As a side note: for Linux kernel this code separation will *never*
work since Linux and its development team doesn't care about such a
drivers. Maintaining separated drivers for Linux kernel is
Hello list,
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic rather
than
Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic
Hello Patrick,
Thursday, March 9, 2006, 9:43:35 AM, you wrote:
PM Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and general chip
Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote:
I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris'
usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I
know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to
only use the magic numbers and
Bill Rushmore wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product.
That is completely unrealistic for the
I really don't think this thread is at all useful or helpful, but I
can't seem to resist. :-
Bill Rushmore writes:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in
a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult
your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...?
I think it's totally reasonable to put out some guidelines about issues related
to GPL
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in
a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult
your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...?
I think it's totally
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't
be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't
much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris source
tree unless someone discovers how
case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code.
Not all code is incoming, some is simply out there. E.g. one question that
comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the
author's web page as binary+source, is it legal to download such a driver
Artem Kachitchkine writes:
case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code.
Not all code is incoming, some is simply out there. E.g. one question
that
comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the
author's web page as binary+source, is it
On 3/9/06, Bill Rushmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real
lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we
want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product.
That
What I *think* you're trying to say is that someone who has a GPL'd
driver in his hands could in theory port it to Open Solaris and then
publish the result on his own (not back through Sun). And another
person who wanted it could download and use it. And that all of this
forms another
27 matches
Mail list logo
