On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 22:42, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
> >
> > If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> > large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> > ls source.
Raul Miller writes:
>> The deception is calling it "great lengths." When I said the GPL
>> "deals with collective works in just two paragraphs" you focused on
>> the one where they are mentioned by name and entirely ignored the
>> other (because you don't like what it says?).
>
> You seem to be i
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
I disagree here. Why do you claim that is derivative work? N
> > However, this sentence makes clear that "works based on the Program"
> > is meant to include both derivative works based on the Program and
> > collective works based on the Program.
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:12:37PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> In addition, mere aggregation of another w
Raul Miller writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
>> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
>> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
>> deri
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 21:59, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If I write a program that contains the entire ls source code as one
> large C string, and then prints it out, that is a derivative work of the
> ls source.
>
> If I write a program that cont
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:32, Michael Poole wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> >> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
> >>
> >> Unfortunately for Mr. Ri
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:11:32PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I think you are confusing language. When the GPL talks about the
> Program, it refers to "any program or other work" licensed under the
> GPL; see section 0. It deals with collective (in contrast to
> derivative) works in just two p
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:48, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> [snip]
> > When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> > distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> > the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmwa
Andrew Suffield writes:
>> Estoppel would bar a claim if the plaintiff first
>> contributed code to a kernel that already had binary blob components.
>> A merely decent lawyer may be able to invoke laches depending on how
>> long an author was silent after the first binary blob was added to the
>>
Raul Miller writes:
> It's a compilation work.
>
> [Some people might think that "compilation" and "aggregation" are the
> same thing -- but the GPL goes to great lengths to specify that it does
> apply where the compilation is a program and not where the compilation
> is not a program.]
I think
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > For someone to claim that data compiled into a program but not executed
> > is "mere aggregation" is nonsense. Is a program that prints the source
> > code to GNU ls (stored as a string constant in the program, not an
> > external file) a derivative of GNU ls? Of course i
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 06:18:14PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>
> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
> copyright notices attributable to hi
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:49:27PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > The compiled kernel is almost certainly a derivative of the firmware
> > included in it. A good lawyer might be able to get you out of
> > this. Debian can *not* afford to assume that it would win such a
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:06:11PM -0400, Robert Goley wrote:
> I am not trying to debate the firmware subject but I would like a little
> information. I know that there are issues with linking binary
> (non-free) with certain drivers. What is the exact procedure that will
> be used with these dr
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
>> A little Google shows that Yggdrasil has made such an argument:
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00130.html
>>
>> Unfortunately for Mr. Richter, Linux does not seem to contain any
>> copyright notices a
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> When you compile a kernel, the firmware is included in it. When you
> distribute that compiled binary, you're distributing a work derived from
> the kernel and the firmware. This is not a claim that the firmware is a
> derivative of the Linux kernel, or vice versa. Rat
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 17:18, Michael Poole wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >
> > [firmware as mere aggregation]
> >> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, could you pl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
> [firmware as mere aggregation]
>> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
>
> Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
> holder (with some referen
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> apparently it's time to set off to the beach and rebuild that little
> sandcastle of ours. Sven, can you please double-check the powerpc
> patches? William, can you please let me know when kernel-source-2.6.7
> becomes av
Andrew Suffield writes:
> The compiled kernel is almost certainly a derivative of the firmware
> included in it. A good lawyer might be able to get you out of
> this. Debian can *not* afford to assume that it would win such a case,
> not least because of a lack of funding for good lawyers.
Anyone
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:38PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[firmware as mere aggregation]
> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
Out of curiosity, could you please show an email from such copyright
holder (with some references to the code in kernel contributed b
Hi,
After some talks with fellow hppa hackers, we decided it was time to
prepare 2.6 kernel packages.
Since we don't have any 2.6 packages for hppa yet, we're looking at _The
Good Thing_ (tm) to do to create them.
That's why we'd like to coordinate with other arch kernel maintainers to
do things
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Scott A. Henderson wrote:
>
> I am not a expert at compiling kernels and don't do this to often so
> responses and questions should keep in mind I understand the basics.
>
Wrong list, please refer to debian-user.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
[Moving to -kernel and -legal instead of -kernel and -devel.]
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:56, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > >
>
I have have a problem with booting the kernel 2.4.25 and later on recent
hardware I purchased
The initial installation is a basic bf24 install no options were
selected, I just followed the menus through the system. I do have ext3 fs.
My application requires me to compile device drivers so I ne
[Humberto: Can you please fix your MUA so that it provides
In-Reply-To:, References:, and doesn't break threads?]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Firmware with _any_ distributable license + kernel (GPL) =
> distributable even if non-free.
This is not clear a priori.
> Firmware and K
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 02:56:00PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> @ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
>
> > On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> >>
> >>> At best that solves a third of the problem.
> >>
@ 16/06/2004 14:31 : wrote Joe Wreschnig :
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
>
>> At best that solves a third of the problem.
>
> It solves the problem at hand -- that Debian has no permission to
> distribute the fil
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 09:41, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > At best that solves a third of the problem.
>
> It solves the problem at hand -- that Debian has no permission to
> distribute the file. You can now go back to wanking about fir
Hi, Kenshi Muto wrote:
> Hi Debian kernel team,
>
> At Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:48:21 -0400,
> Debian Installer wrote:
>> Accepted:
>> kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
>
> I have a question. Will this revision fix #251861?
>
Just read the changelog..:
Changes: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386 (2.6.6-2) unst
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:42:43AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Andrew Suffield writes:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >
> >> They can believe what they want. But for legal relevance they have
> >> to show how exactly the firmware was derived from the rest
I am not trying to debate the firmware subject but I would like a little information. I know that there are issues with linking binary (non-free) with certain drivers. What is the exact procedure that will be used with these drivers? I have to use several drivers on this list. Are they just
Hi, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> They can believe what they want. But for legal relevance they have
>> to show how exactly the firmware was derived from the rest of the
>> code (or vice versa). If they can't, it is merely a collection of
>> works.
>
> Don't be absurd. Any resulting binary is obvious
Hi Debian kernel team,
At Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:48:21 -0400,
Debian Installer wrote:
> Accepted:
> kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
> to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.6/kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
> kernel-patch-debian-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
> to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.6/kernel-patch-
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 09:01:52PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> At best that solves a third of the problem.
It solves the problem at hand -- that Debian has no permission to
distribute the file. You can now go back to wanking about firmware all
you like. I shan't bother with that.
--
"Next th
Accepted:
kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.6/kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
kernel-patch-debian-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2.6.6/kernel-patch-debian-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2.dsc
to pool/main/k/kernel-source-2
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
>> They can believe what they want. But for legal relevance they have
>> to show how exactly the firmware was derived from the rest of the
>> code (or vice versa). If they can't, it is merely a collection of
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2.dsc
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2.tar.gz
kernel-patch-debian-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
kernel-tree-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
kernel-doc-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
kernel-source
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2.dsc
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2.tar.gz
kernel-source-2.6.6_2.6.6-2_all.deb
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot be processed.
If no
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:18:32PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> [snip]
> > > What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link?
> >
> > People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the
> > kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> > What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link?
>
> People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the
> kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
> Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material
kernel-headers-2.6-386_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
to pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.6-i386/kernel-headers-2.6-386_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6-686-smp_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
to
pool/main/k/kernel-image-2.6.6-i386/kernel-headers-2.6-686-smp_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6-686_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
to poo
kernel-image-2.6.6-i386_2.6.6-2_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
kernel-image-2.6.6-i386_2.6.6-2.dsc
kernel-image-2.6.6-i386_2.6.6-2.tar.gz
kernel-headers-2.6.6-2_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
kernel-headers-2.6-386_2.6.6-2_i386.deb
kernel-image-2.6-386_2.6.6-2_i38
Probably you are the uploader of the following file(s) in
the Debian upload queue directory:
kernel-image-2.6.6-i386_2.6.6-2.dsc
kernel-image-2.6.6-i386_2.6.6-2.tar.gz
This looks like an upload, but a .changes file is missing, so the job
cannot be processed.
If no .changes file arrives within
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:24:52AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Non-experimental duploads are imminent in order to resolve the i386
> FPU handling bug. These duploads will transfer maintainership of the
> i386 kernel packages and those alone to debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
> in addition
James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The script lives in the SELinux policy compilation package, which is
> considered the source of truth for these headers. They are only ever
> regenerated manually when significant changes are made to SELinux (like
> this), and I don't think there is any
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 07:54:34AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
>
> > > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
> >
> > At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other
> > copyright holders of the kernel,
Hi,
what is the status of the revision control system for the
kernel-source and debian patches?
Was a decision made what rcs to use and where to place it?
Is it setup yet?
If I missed some announcement just tell me and I will scan the
archive.
MfG
Goswin
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
>
> > > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
> >
> > At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other
> > copyright holders of the kernel, have they agr
Hi,
apparently it's time to set off to the beach and rebuild that little
sandcastle of ours. Sven, can you please double-check the powerpc
patches? William, can you please let me know when kernel-source-2.6.7
becomes available, and where it can be downloaded?
Regards, Jens.
--
J'qbpbe, le m'e
#include
* Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
> > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
>
> At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other
> copyright holders of the kernel, have they agreed to link with the
> non-GPLd code? (Before someone tells me
52 matches
Mail list logo
