[I am not subscribed to debian-kernel.]
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:00:55AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> > It's a unilateral license. It can't mean anything but what he intends
> > it to mean.
>
> Reference, please? That is Alice in Wonderland logic ("Words mean
>
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>
>>>Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
>>>what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
>>>conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them res
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:54, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Primarily GR 2004-003, which just got its first CFV.
By which of course I meant GR 2004-004, which is only *about* GR
2004-003.
--
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 15:02, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
> >> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
> >> conclusion they communi
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> There are four classes of firmware:
>
> 1. Firmware which no one has any permission to distribute. These have to
> go right away, or be relicensed. Thankfully, there are few of these, and
> the kernel team seems to be willing to help pursue the relicensing.
>
> 2. Firmware
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Now can I get more than 1 person to agree on this? The trouble is not
>> what the conclusion is, but rather, that everyone has their own personal
>> conclusion they communicate to me, and none of them resemble each other.
On Fri, Jun 18,
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 13:00, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> William Lee Irwin III writes:
> >> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> >> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole w
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 19:39, Michael Poole wrote:
> Raul Miller writes:
>
> > Because the linux kernel does not represent mere aggregation of one part
> > of the kernel with some other part on some storage volume.
> >
> > It's not a coincidence that the parts of the kernel are there together.
>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:47:50AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
The current GR on debian-vote attempts to resolve some of these
issues.
FYI,
--
Rau
William Lee Irwin III writes:
>> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
>> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:55:34PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is corre
William Lee Irwin III writes:
> I'm getting a different story from every single person I talk to, so
> something resembling an authoritative answer would be very helpful.
For Debian's purposes, I believe that Joe's summary is correct: DFSG
requires that anything without source be removed. As far
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>>as to why the GPL prohibits
>>distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
>
> It doesn't. If some work includes a GPL'ed work and is distributed,
> then the whole work must be GPL compatible. This doesn't extend to a
> collection o
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 12:34:24PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> The current release policy says that all firmware not licensed under
> GPL-compatible licenses needs to be removed. It also says that any
> sourceless firmware needs to be removed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2004/06/msg00
On Fri, 2004-06-18 at 10:51, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> > exception to < > any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> > the Pr
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 04:50:08PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> If it's undistributable, it obviously doesn't belong in main. So please
> remove the undistributable stuff. Second, if it's non-free, it doesn't
> belong in the kernel, which is in main. So remove anything that is
> non-free from t
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
>
> Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it?
AFAICS it contains not a derivative in the legal sense but the
original in a different
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:35:43AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> That clause only deals with some anthology works, not all. It's an
> exception to < any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing
> the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications...>>
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 10:55:47AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> What rights do the GPL'd software recipient have? The GPL grants
> some rights not granted by copyrights law. I made an extensive
> document and posted it to d-l, but no-one seemed to listen or to
> understand. All ok. IRT making der
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> The interpretation favoured by kernel hackers is that anything that runs
> on the host CPU is part of the program, and anything that runs on the
> card is just data for the program to operate on.
This distinction isn't relevant when
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Repeating, trying to summarize: the current version of the Linux
> kernel is a derivative work of its earlier versions, and an anthology
> work of its separated autonomous parts. Those parts, in principle,
> would be each and every patch that entered th
Brian Thomas Sniffen writes:
> Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
>> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
>> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
>> derivative works fro
Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
> copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
> distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
> derivative works from the rights of a collective (antholo
@ 18/06/2004 11:25 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>No, Raul. The law. USC17, BR copyright law, and probably every
>>copyright law following the Geneva convention *does* such a
>>distinction. BR copyright law specifically separates the rights of
>>deriv
I apologize for the cross-posting to linux-kernel, but this seems
relevant to me (even if it comes from debian- lists) to the kernel
developers as a whole.
@ 18/06/2004 10:02 : wrote Brian Thomas Sniffen :
>Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>The firmware typically wasn't patched, and not
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 09:02:25AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> I would be much more convinced if I saw an argument from the
> GPL-incompatible-firmware-is-OK side as to why the GPL prohibits
> distributing linkages of GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code.
The interpretation favoured by kernel
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The firmware typically wasn't patched, and nothing is derived from it.
Isn't the kernel containing the firmware derivative of it? If not,
why can't I put some GPL-incompatible x86 code into the kernel, load
it into a device in my system -- the main memo
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not "this work
> is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is." Humberto has
> cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary images) should be
> considered a compilati
@ 18/06/2004 09:52 : wrote Raul Miller :
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 04:41:42PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
This is not the way the law works. The presumption is not "this work
is a derivative work because Raul Miller claims it is." Humberto has
cited reasons why the kernel tarball (or binary imag
@ 17/06/2004 21:21 : wrote Josh Triplett :
Indeed. For that matter, disassemblers perform mechanical translations,
so if the disassembled code were not a derived work of the executable,
that would greatly aid most reverse-engineering efforts.
- Josh Triplett
No, mechanical translations are not
@ 17/06/2004 18:27 : wrote Raul Miller :
>> 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/treat
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
> 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
@ 17/06/2004 17:19 : wrote Raul Miller :
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.
Your reaction is uncalled-for.
On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 08:54:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Surely if
> anyone should be concerned, it's one with a half-billion dollar market
> capitalisation rather than one with tens of thousands in its bank account.
No, quite the opposite. The former will not be seriously afflicted by
co
* Josh Triplett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040617 23:55]:
> 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,
>
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
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
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 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 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
> >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?).
> >
> >
@ 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
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
@ 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
@ 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
@ 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
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
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 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
> >
* 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
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
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
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
[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:
> > >
>
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
