On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 10:32 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> > > GPL, so why not say it explicitly ?
> >
> > I don't think anyone here has disagreed. What almost everyone has said
> > however is "so go and do it" -- go do the research, contact the
> > copyright holders directly and get the permission to make patches, then
> > post them here.
>
> Ok. I have some doubts about doing the work, and it then being rejected and
> i did the work first, which is why i asked. It seemed a reasonable thing to
> ask, and my analysis of the problem was sound, so why didn't i get a, yeah, go
> ahead, instead of this rejection ?
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you want to then go ahead. I think people
are just fed up of people bringing up the issue and then failing to do
anything about it -- so prove them wrong ;-)
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
knghtbrd: there may be no spoon, but can you spot the vulnerability in
eye_render_shiny_object.c?
-- rcw
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
