On 13.12.2010 20:00, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Khem Raj wrote:
The bug http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46883 files
against GCC trunk also happens with linaro gcc 4.5
My guess is that there is a backported patch from trunk into linaro
4.5 tree thats causing this ICE
This ICE does not h
Alan,
I still stand by my assertion that educating companies as to the
realities and philosophies of open source is better than threatening them.
Your analogy of open source as a standard, a practical de facto standard
written in a programming language is a good one.Forking code (
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:18:21AM -0600, Matt Sealey wrote:
> Ownership of the code is dependent on who licensed it. I do not think
> Linaro need be so concerned over opensourcing or reimplementing
> drivers. The fact that the kernel driver is open source as it is, and
> this is by far the most im
> way to behave. The best way to get companies to change their behaviour is
> to find them and support them. Making threatening GPL noises in email does
> not help them in any way.
I would disagree based on years of history.
The best way to get a company to change behaviour is for a situati
> The GPLv2 is written such that the "if you're interfacing the kernel
> or compiler you don't need to opensource that bit with your app"
I would suggest you re-read the license. It says nothing of the sort.
Indeed the gcc compiler licensing for the compiler support library is
actually rather care
Hi Tom,
On 12/22/2010 06:51 PM, Tom Gall wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I don't know if Paul was successful but I do "build systems" from the
> linaro/ubuntu packages so I suspect I can probably be of some
> assistance.
Great! Thanks for offering your help.
>
> This might be something better discusse
it would take until a beta driver appears? 1 year? 2 years? And what will happen
in the meantime?
plainly.some other company will take over the market, and sell products
with open drivers available.
in meantime arm devices can still be used for i.e. dataloggers, especially
without linux suppor
On 22 December 2010 20:39, Piotr Gluszenia Slawinski
wrote:
So to say that the corporate world might need to consider Open Source to
be competitive and survive, but the reverse is not true i.e. Open Source
doesn't _require_ the corporate world to survive.
i agree with it fully, and to support
Le mercredi 22 décembre 2010 à 15:29 -0500, Nicolas Pitre a écrit :
> It is
> not economically viable for the Open Source community to accommodate
> proprietary drivers, irrespective of how loud you might advocate for
> that.
I think you can remove the word "economically" from your sentence (or
