On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
> bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
> either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Every book in my book shelf is software?
>
> If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
Giusepp
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> >
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> > than RedHat?
>
> It's impossible to treat patents
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on nat
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a frie
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operat
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but t
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in the
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a m
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > If your statement was true
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Hi,
Hi.
>Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
>>making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
>>instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
>>possible.
>
>
>From section 3 of
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
> >patents.
You have lots of "possible legal problems" of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither business
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:07:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
> > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
> > problems for the use
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
> First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
> making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
> instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
> possible.
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
Th
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without havin
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:03:01AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >David Schmitt wrote:
> >
> >> On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>
> >>>[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> >>>could distribute th
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> >an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> >disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the result
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> >>firm
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> > the kernel. Fu
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > > legal risks than comm
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > > modifications to firmware. Personally I would
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
> > but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > legal risks than commercial distributions, can you explain why Debian
> > exposes the legal
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we don't want to do so? I kno
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>...
> The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily muster
> the ressources to fight of a legal case, even one which is a dubious one,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >...
> > The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> > novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily
> > muster
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > > is only needed on old/buggy hardware
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> > Or to support advanced features which can
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 17:01 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> >
> > As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
> > achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
> > discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches w
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 16:30 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> I don't recall anyone asking Intel to give theirs designs away. This
> thread is about:
>
> 1. (mainly) some firmware hexdumps present in the kernel source tree are
> either expicitly marked as being GPL'd or unmarked, in which case on
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel w
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> initialization, without having the "source" that generated that
> microcode, we are in a lot of hurt. I
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to where
one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its initialization,
without having the "source" that generated that microcode, we are in
a lot of hurt. Intel isn't going to give their designs away.
"Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware, and
> not MICROcode. If somebody has decided to rename FIRMware to
> SOFTware,
Debian has undertaken to change the meaning of a whole lot of words,
including "software" and "free".
> Thi
> "Richard" == Richard B Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Last time I checked, GPL was about SOFTware, not FIRMware,
Richard> and not MICROcode.
Oh be real, there's no real difference between them and you know it.
It's all about where the bits are stored and what they tend to do
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
[snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL s
David Schmitt wrote:
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon under a written agreement stating I
> could distribute the image under the GPL. Since the firmware is
> simply data to Linux, hence keeping it under the GPL should be just
> fine.
Then I would
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a f
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:34:56AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> >is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> >Or to support advanced features which can be disabled.
>
> TSO firmware is commonly used thes
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
weren't going to do it, but if you wa
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:32 +0200, Olivier Galibert a Ãcrit :
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> >
> > > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > > code
> > >
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:17:15AM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a écrit :
>
> > Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> > code
> > for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which
>
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > 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 t
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 Ã 10:04 +0200, David Schmitt a Ãcrit :
> Then I would like to exercise my right under the GPL to aquire the source
> code
> for the firmware (and the required compilers, starting with genfw.c which is
> mentioned in acenic_firmware.h) since - as far as I know - firmware i
On Thursday 07 April 2005 09:25, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> [snip] I got it from Alteon
> under a written agreement stating I could distribute the image under
> the GPL. Since the firmware is simply data to Linux, hence keeping it
> under the GPL should be just fine.
Then I would like to exercise my ri
> "Matthew" == Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the
>> percieved problem, or the ones discussing it.
Matthew> Actually, there are some legitimate problems
On Llu, 2005-04-04 at 21:47, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)
>
> There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.
Firmware being seperate does make a lot of sense. It isn't going away
but it doesn't generally belong in kernel now we have i
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> >works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> >separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
> >you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:39:09PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
> > problem, or the ones discussing it.
>
> Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some
On Tue, 5 April 2005 15:28:01 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> * Firmwares such as tg3 should be shipped with the kernel tarball.
As in /usr/src/linux/firmware/tg3.tar? Would be a simple patch to add
that one.
Jörn
--
The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software
than f
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> > > works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> > > separated. This
Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> > works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
> > separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
> > you cannot easi
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:56:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 05 avril 2005 à 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> > > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many peop
[MFT set to -legal, as this is becoming legal arcana probably not
particularly interesting to any other list.]
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> There are two solutions to this issue, either you abide by the GPL
> and provide also the source code of those firmware binaries (the
> prefered
Josselin Mouette wrote:
Finally, you shouldn't forget that, technically speaking, using hotplug
for uploading the firmware is much more flexible and elegant than
including it in the kernel. Upgrading the firmware and the module should
be two independent operations. People who are advocating the cur
Josselin Mouette wrote:
The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
disagree with that assertion now.
This is only true if the result is considered a "derivative work" of the
gpl'd code.
The GPL states "In addition
Josselin Mouette wrote:
It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
works that are only aggregated can be easily distinguished and
separated. This is not the case for a binary kernel module, from which
you cannot easily extract the firmware and code parts.
Not really..
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 12:50 -0600, Chris Friesen a Ãcrit :
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> > an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> > disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the resul
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 14:17 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit :
> > You are completely missing the point. I don't care whether the firmwares
> > should be free, or whether they could be free. The fact is they are not
> > free, and Debian doesn't distribute non-free software in the "main"
> > arc
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 ÿÿ 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a ÿÿcrit :
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistr
Le mardi 05 avril 2005 Ã 11:50 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a Ãcrit :
> >> You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >> nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> >> firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> >> the
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Humberto Massa wrote:
> > >But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
> > >around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
> > >firmware blobs
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>>>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
>>>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
>>>firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribut
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. E
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we don't want to do so? I kno
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 explic
Josselin Mouette wrote:
You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
the kernel. Full stop. End of story. Bye bye. Redhat and SuSE may
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>
>>>You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
>>>other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
>>>sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes
Jeff Garzik wrote:
We do not add comments to the kernel source code which simply state the
obvious.
Jeff
Whoa, kind of harsh, isn't it? I'm just trying to help.
Anyway, the problem at hand is: people do *not* think there is anything
obvious.
For instance: many, many people do not consider b
Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What if we don't want to do so? I know I personally posted a solution
> > Then probably the extremists in Debian
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:48AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Humberto Massa wrote:
> >But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
> >around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
> >firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that he
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:21AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
> > other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
> > sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder fo
Humberto Massa wrote:
But, the question made here was a subtler one and you are all biting
around the bush: there *are* some misrepresentations of licenses to the
firmware blobs in the kernel (-- ok, *if* you consider that hex dumps
are not source code). What Sven asked was: "Hey, can I state ex
> > I agree. And that really doesn't need a lot of infrastructure,
> > basically just a tarball that unpacks to /lib/firmware, maybe a specfile
> > and debian/ dir in addition.
>
>
> At the moment there is -zero- infrastructure that would allow my tg3 to
> continue working, when I upgrade to a
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
One of the sticking points will be how people get the firmware; I can
see the point of a kernel-distributable-firmware project related to the
kernel (say on kernel.org) which would provide a nice collection o
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
You know, the fact that Red Hat, SuSE, Ubuntu, and pretty much all
other commercial distributions have not been worried about getting
sued for this alleged GPL'ed violation makes it a lot harder for me
(and others, I'm sure) take Debian's concerns seriously.
I said in other
Raul Miller wrote:
On Apr 04, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is waiting for NEW processing, but i also believe that the dubious
copyright assignement will not allow the ftp-masters to let it pass
into the archive, since it *IS* a GPL violation, and thus i am doing
this in order to solv
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:39:02 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
>> from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
>
> I think that
> > Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
> > config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
> > firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
> > entirely.
>
> I think the infrasturcture is quite mature. We have a lot of drivers
> that requi
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
> > > config option and then later on when the infrastructure matures for
> > > firmware loading/providing firmware it can be removed from the driver
> > > entirely.
> >
> > I
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 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 pe
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > 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 pe
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 11:11 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > I don't think you did get a rejection, a few people said that _they_
> > > weren't going to do it, but
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:36:58AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> One of the options is to even ship the firmware in the kernel tarbal but
> from a separate directory with a clear license clarification text in it.
I think that's what we should do. I currently don't have any firmware
requiring d
Hello Jeff, ...
If i can believe what i see in :
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/anno/drivers/net/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/net|related/drivers/net/tg3.c|[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
(which may or may not be correct and complete, since i am not really familiar
with bk and ho
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:28:07AM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I think they will be accepted if they first introduce a transition
> period where tg3 will do request_firmware() and only use the built-in
> firmware if that fails.
Fine with me.
> Second step is to make the built-in firmware a
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:49:25AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 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 i
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
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 h
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 explic
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(-project added to the Cc:, non-debian related lists removed)
> No documentation for the C compiler (not even a documentation of the
> options) will be neither fun for the users of Debian nor for the Debian
> maintainers - but it's the future of Debian...
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
> is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
> file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
> GP
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
> >the
> >firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just ne
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +020
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> > that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship something which is
> > not
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
