Accepted:
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.d
Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> > that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> > of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> > mechanical (non-creative, ergo
Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>>See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
>>that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
>>of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
>>mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copy
Joe Moore writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
>> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
>> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
>> mechanical (non-creative, ergo no
Michael Poole wrote:
> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transfor
Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Goswin von Brederlow writes:
>
>> It shouldn't be removed. Only the firmware of tg3 was a problem and
>> the driver works without it. Or was there more non-free?
>
>> tg3 is a pretty essential module for amd64.
>
> That's precisely why this pat
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:46:26PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
> > Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is
> > distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they
> > have granted
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:18AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> 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
Hi,
Sven Luther writes:
> Again history repeats itself, and the new powerpc kernel packages
> are now held captive in the incoming queue for nearly (if not
> already more) than one month.
All three pending revisions entered unstable this morning.
Ironically, I got the message just after kicking
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:05:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> The kernel (I assume as a whole) is a derivative work of what?
Earlier versions of the kernel.
--
Raul
Raul Miller writes:
> Ok, this is good -- I did not know that.
>
> However -- by this definition, the linux kernel is very definitely a
> derivative work, and the firmware is content which has been incorporated
> into the kernel.
>
> According to what you just cited, the concept of a collective wo
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable for a
> large percentage of users. Those users turn to other distributions who,
Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware
> > If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
...
> > work of an earlier edition), please cite that specific document.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise6.html discusses the
> differences be
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 11:46:55PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 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 a
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 14:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> > Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> > licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> > license's author for gu
Raul Miller writes:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
>> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
>
> I'm writing in english, not greek.
>
> If you think there is some legally relev
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:38:58PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:42:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > > Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
> > >
> > > What would that do?
> >
> > Well, not rea
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:46:14PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> But there is. You see, in Law, when you enumerate things, you are
> separating things. (dichotomy = two separated in Greek)
I'm writing in english, not greek.
If you think there is some legally relevant document which means that a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 06:03:16PM +, Jim Marhaus wrote:
> Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreting free
> licenses, following the wishes of the copyright holder and looking to the
> license's author for guidance. In this case the FSF indicates the binary
> firmwar
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:42:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
> >
> > What would that do?
>
> Well, not really be usefull in the current plan, which is to hold only
> the debian part, but
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:12:49PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
>
> What would that do?
Well, not really be usefull in the current plan, which is to hold only
the debian part, but if there was a bitekeeper gateway, we could hold
the whole kernel tree in i
> >False dichotomy.
> >
> >There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
> >derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every copyright
> law following the Geneva convention *does* such a d
@ 17/06/2004 15:30 : wrote Raul Miller :
False dichotomy.
There's nothing preventing a collective work from being a
derivative work.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:24:23PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
copyright
law follow
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
> the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
> copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
>
> _Not_ collective/compilation/antholo
@ 17/06/2004 15:14 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 12:24:29PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
No way. The clause #0 of the GPL is crystal clear: << a "work based on
the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under
copyright law >> DERIVATIVE. Under copyright law.
_No
Michael wrote:
> Several (a plurality, if not majority) of US federal court districts
> use the Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison test to determine
> whether one computer program infringes on another's copyright --
[snip]
Traditionally people have erred on the side of caution in interpreti
> 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?).
> >
> >
> Now, if arch had a bitkeeper gateway ...
What would that do?
@ 17/06/2004 01:06 : wrote Michael Poole :
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 wha
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:25:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 08:59:41 +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:21:42AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't care much, not being particularly familiar with e
Hello,
Again history repeats itself, and the new powerpc kernel packages are
now held captive in the incoming queue for nearly (if not already more)
than one month. And the excuse for it is a bug in the autobuilders for
which a hacky workaround was already included in 2.6.6-5 more than 3
weeks ago
On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 11:22:32PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 00:34:05 +0200, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > That said, i prefer the simpler to use subversion, it let you be
> > more productive.
>
> Do you have any basis for that statement? I have abs
Troll.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
@ 17/06/2004 12:26 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>Humberto Massa wrote: [snip]
>
It's a compilation work.
>>>
>>>Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
>>>compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
>>>
>>>Thiemo
>>
>>not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem
When the ip_conntrack module is loaded on recent 2.6 kernels, such as
2.6.6 and 2.6.7, and one tries to access an SFS mount or a simple
localhost NFS mount, the kernel will spit out
ip_conntrack_in: Frag of proto 17 (hook=0)
repeatedly as the process attempting the access will hang.
This problem
@ 16/06/2004 20:48 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
>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 deri
Humberto Massa wrote:
[snip]
> >> It's a compilation work.
> >
> > Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
> > compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
> >
> > Thiemo
>
> not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
I referred only to the
Hi,
Goswin von Brederlow writes:
> It shouldn't be removed. Only the firmware of tg3 was a problem and
> the driver works without it. Or was there more non-free?
> tg3 is a pretty essential module for amd64.
That's precisely why this patch exists. It adds Nathanael's version
of tg3.c to a kern
@ 17/06/2004 00:43 : wrote Raul Miller :
>>>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:
>
>>
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
[snip]
> > Could you please explain how exactly the derivation works in this case?
> > And please bring forward some more convincing arguments than "this is
> > nonsense", "this is obvious", or some broken analogy.
>
> Step by step, tell me where you start to disagree:
>
> If
Jens Schmalzing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
>> This one can't. It readds drivers/net/tg3.[ch] after it was removed
>> from Debian's .orig.tar.gz
>
> Okay.
It shouldn't be removed. Only the firmware of tg3 was a problem and
the driver works without it. Or was
@ 17/06/2004 11:07 : wrote Thiemo Seufer :
Raul Miller wrote:
> It's a compilation work.
Fine. The copyright for the compilation lies by the one who did the
compilation. This is Linus Torvalds, I guess.
Thiemo
not here in BR. Or at least not in the way you _seem_ to be implying.
Let's just subs
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:09:44PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:17:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > > pnpide_init has no args indeed. AFAIK subsequent section should be
> > > re
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 03:17:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > pnpide_init has no args indeed. AFAIK subsequent section should be removed:
>
> I don't think it should just be removed but rather reworked. I'll look
>
Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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 deri
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:29:56PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> pnpide_init has no args indeed. AFAIK subsequent section should be removed:
I don't think it should just be removed but rather reworked. I'll look
into it.
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> I was using a minimal test case as an example here, but fine; consider a
> program that does many nontrivial things, one of which is printing such
> a string. For example it might print the source, count the number of
> times an identifier is used, count the number of lines
Andrew Suffield writes:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> Incompetence (or laziness) on the part of the plaintiff is a perfectly
>> adequate reason to invoke either of those defenses. Until you cite
>> specific case law, I will disbelieve your claim that proof
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 him or Yggdrasil before
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:46:27AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> > This one can't. It readds drivers/net/tg3.[ch] after it was removed
> > from Debian's .orig.tar.gz
>
> Okay.
>
> > Looks like that's still the old one, the current patch is below:
>
> Pe
Hi debian-kernel,
yesterday I upgraded a Debian stable system from Linux 2.2.20 to 2.4.16
(package: kernel-image-2.4.16-686). The installed 2.2.20 kernel didn't use an
initrd, but the new does.
In the install process I was erroneously prompted to add 'initrd=/initrd' to my
lilo.conf. But the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 10:36:11PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> 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
> >
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> This one can't. It readds drivers/net/tg3.[ch] after it was removed
> from Debian's .orig.tar.gz
Okay.
> Looks like that's still the old one, the current patch is below:
Perfect. Thanks a lot.
If anybody feels like trying out the resulting kernel-source tarba
Hi,
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> http://verein.lst.de/~hch/debian-2.6.7.tgz
>
> has a crude forward port of the patches in the 2.6.6 package.
Thanks. Unfortunately, 00_drivers-net-tg3-readd and 00_modular-ide do
not apply cleanly against vanilla 2.6.7.
> I haven't investigated packaging
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 10:25:26AM +0200, Jens Schmalzing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Christoph Hellwig writes:
>
> > http://verein.lst.de/~hch/debian-2.6.7.tgz
> >
> > has a crude forward port of the patches in the 2.6.6 package.
>
> Thanks. Unfortunately, 00_drivers-net-tg3-readd
This one can't.
* Joe Wreschnig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040616 22:25]:
> Kernel copyright holders think otherwise, as do many other people.
There is a company that claims that itself is the copyright holder of
some Unix sources, and that thinks that use of that concepts is a
breach of copyright. Should we accept tha
56 matches
Mail list logo
