On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 07:04:18PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> We're talking about the basic scheduling of the kernel.
Sure, but don't underestimate what can be done by a dedicated
(or crazed) person using cpp.
--
Raul
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:09:09PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> > The modifications would probably be so great that you'd have a
> > copyrightable work in and of itself.
>
> I'm not convinced, yet.
We're talking about the basic scheduling of the kernel. Th
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:09:09PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> The modifications would probably be so great that you'd have a
> copyrightable work in and of itself.
I'm not convinced, yet.
> However, as Marcus has pointed out, the algorithms are the sticky
> issue and that would be enough to consig
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:52:38PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
^
> I stand corrected
^
Woe, ye mortals! The apocalypse is nigh!
--
G. Branden Robinson |There's nothing an agnostic can't do
Debian GNU/Linux
So, the question comes back to: non-free or not distributable at all? I
think the case of KDE sets the precedent, and it's not distributable at
all.
Aside: Would "doing the impossible" be a "field of endeavor"? :)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > These are linux-specific k
The modifications would probably be so great that you'd have a
copyrightable work in and of itself. However, as Marcus has pointed out,
the algorithms are the sticky issue and that would be enough to consign it
to non-free if it was distributable at all--Debian-bsd seems to be back
from the dead,
> These are linux-specific kernel modules, I doubt that they're going to be
> usable in debian/hurd or debian/bsd...
Perhaps not, but "you are free to use, modify, and redistribute this
code in any place where it makes sense to do so" would not pass DFSG
muster.
Discrimination against uses that
Noted. I stand corrected: I was looking at the "small picture".
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:34:55PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >
> > These are linux-specific kernel modules, I doubt that they're going to be
> > usable in debian/hurd or debian/bsd...
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:34:55PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> These are linux-specific kernel modules, I doubt that they're going to be
> usable in debian/hurd or debian/bsd...
That's certainly true of the unmodified code.
Do you think that's reasonable to say of code modified to work in
those en
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:34:55PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
>
> These are linux-specific kernel modules, I doubt that they're going to be
> usable in debian/hurd or debian/bsd...
However, not the modules are patented, but the design principles and
implementation strategies. Patents are a wholly d
These are linux-specific kernel modules, I doubt that they're going to be
usable in debian/hurd or debian/bsd...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:48:08PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> > My reading of this is that the RTlinux code cannot be integrated into
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 02:48:08PM -0600, Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> My reading of this is that the RTlinux code cannot be integrated into
> some other GPLed OS, eg the Hurd, without incurring patent license
> fees. To my mind this should be enough to consign it to non-free.
This is a good point.
> http://www.rtlinux.org/documents/faq.html#Q5
>
>Q: What's the license? How much do I pay? What about the patent?
>
>A: RTLinux is released under the GPL and can be freely used,
>modified, and redistributed under the terms of that license. If
>you modify RTLinux code, the new code
Scripsit Jens Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes. RSA was the only patent case until now.
Do you remember a certain bitmap encoding and compressions format
originally defined by CompuServe?
--
Henning Makholm "Ambiguous cases are defined as those for which the
comp
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> > > restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> > > modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be
> > > distributed under the
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> > restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> > modifications and derived works, and must allow th
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Furthermore, in regards to the DSFG being limited to copyright
> restrictions, all I see is: Derived Works The license must allow
> modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed
> under the same terms as t
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Wielaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: RTLinux patent
> Yes, you are right. I was not completely sure.
> I was unde
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 06:45:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Fortunately not. Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. If a patent prevents
> > you from distributing a GPL'd program, you may not do so. The DFSG is
> > concerned with Copyright, and so does not apply here as long as the DFSG
>
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:31:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fortunately not. Read sections 7 and 8 of the GPL. If a patent prevents
> you from distributing a GPL'd program, you may not do so. The DFSG is
> concerned with Copyright, and so d
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:31:59AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is not compatible with the GPL (or the DSFG, I believe). The
> The GPL is about reading, writing, modifying, and distributing software.
> It doesn't restrict platform compatibility (or even require functionality
> or com
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 08:23:45AM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > If the patent were only valid in the USA, would it still have to be
> > > removed?
> > No, but it would be moved to Debian non-US so only 'patent safe' servers
> > outside the US
Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > If the patent were only valid in the USA, would it still have to be
> > removed?
> No, but it would be moved to Debian non-US so only 'patent safe' servers
> outside the USA would carry it.
Are you sure?
I thought that there was no problem with distributing
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > RTLinux is also governed by a license to use the base RTLinux mechanism
> > under U.S. Patent 5,995,745. The patent license basically rein
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:56:41PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
> Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities.
>
> In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned
>
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 15, 2000 at 11:09:07PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
> > Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time
> > capabilities.
> >
> > In the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
> Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities.
>
> In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned
> (US Patent No. 5,995,745).
Hi,
the package rtlinux contains RTLinux. This is a real-time layer below the
Linux kernel to provide a Linux operating system with real-time capabilities.
In the documentation of version 3.0 of RTLinux a patent is mentioned
(US Patent No. 5,995,745). This patent covers the underlying principle
28 matches
Mail list logo
