> Unlikely as most of the code I've written belongs to Intel or Red Hat. I
> also have better things to do with life than sue Nvidia and start an all
> out copyright and patent war in Linuxspace.
I forgot to ask, but after your petty G+ trolling, if most of the code
belings to Intel or Red Hat, wh
> Unlikely as most of the code I've written belongs to Intel or Red Hat. I
> also have better things to do with life than sue Nvidia and start an all
> out copyright and patent war in Linuxspace.
I forgot to ask, but after your petty G+ trolling, if most of the code
belings to Intel or Red Hat, wh
> From the fact this patch keeps getting resubmitted despite repeated
> objection I deduce they are in fact of the view it does matter and that
> therefore it is a licensing change and they are scared of the
> consequences of ignoring it.
>
No I think they just want to have to write a pointless ha
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> > holders
b>>
>> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn't a relicense of anything.
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL isn't a license its nothing like a license. Its a
>> totally pointless thing, it should be
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_USERS_MIGHT_BE_DERIVED_CONSULT_YOUR_LAWYER, but it
>> really should be EXPORT_SYMBOL, and rea
>> Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I believe that the developers and maintainers of dma-buf have provided
>> the needed signoff, both in person and in this thread. If there are any
>> objections from that group, I'm happy to discuss any changes necessary to get
>> this merged.
>
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:04 +1000
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> >> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> >> > then please take the m
> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
> > holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. Thi
> From the fact this patch keeps getting resubmitted despite repeated
> objection I deduce they are in fact of the view it does matter and that
> therefore it is a licensing change and they are scared of the
> consequences of ignoring it.
>
No I think they just want to have to write a pointless ha
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:04 +1000
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> >> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> >> > then please take the m
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> > holders
> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
> > holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. Thi
b>>
>> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn't a relicense of anything.
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL isn't a license its nothing like a license. Its a
>> totally pointless thing, it should be
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_USERS_MIGHT_BE_DERIVED_CONSULT_YOUR_LAWYER, but it
>> really should be EXPORT_SYMBOL, and rea
>> Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I believe that the developers and maintainers of dma-buf have provided
>> the needed signoff, both in person and in this thread. If there are any
>> objections from that group, I'm happy to discuss any changes necessary to get
>> this merged.
>
> > Then they can accept the risk of ignoring EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
> > calling into it anyway can't they. Your argument makes no rational sense
> > of any kind.
>
> But then why object to the change, your objection makes sense, naking
> the patch makes none, if you believe in your objection.
[l/
> > Then they can accept the risk of ignoring EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
> > calling into it anyway can't they. Your argument makes no rational sense
> > of any kind.
>
> But then why object to the change, your objection makes sense, naking
> the patch makes none, if you believe in your objection.
[l/
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for
>> zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
>> drivers
>> are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for
>> zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
>> drivers
>> are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL
20 matches
Mail list logo
