\
- __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(__mem_, bwlq, type)
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(, bwlq, type, USE_IO_BARRIER_FOR_NON_MEM_OUT) \
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(__mem_, bwlq, type, 2)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(b, u8)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(w, u16)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter he/him https://FSFLA.org/b
given !barrier, but you already knew that.
Did you mean to ask what war_io_reorder_wmb expand to, or whether there
are other uses of war_io_reorder_wmb, or what?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolc
On Mar 7, 2019, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 03:41:01AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2019, "Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
>>
>> > Is there an MMIO completion barrier missing there somewhere by any chance
>> > c
bwlq, type)
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(, bwlq, type, 0) \
+ __BUILD_IOPORT_PFX(__mem_, bwlq, type, 1)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(b, u8)
BUILDIO_IOPORT(w, u16)
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board mem
Like,
/proc/irq/14/pata_cs5536/ is there, but I haven't checked whether it was
there before the patch.
Do you suggest any way to tell whether it had the intended effect?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America b
realize you wrote
you did so for 24 hours non-stop, but... I'm curious as to what
obstacles you ran into. It's such a reproducible problem for me that I
can't see how bisecting it might be difficult.
Or were by any chance you talking about the reboot/shutdown problem
then?
--
Alexa
;t think I've ever hit this one. Do you happen to know how
far back it might be needed?
> I'll continue working on upstreaming these out-of-tree drivers as my personal
> project. I hope you'll be able to use a fully-functional machine with the
> mainline
> kernel soon,
while. Thanks.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo
Be the change, be Free! FSF Latin America board member
GNU Toolchain EngineerFree Software Evangelist
Hay que enGNUrecerse, pero sin perder la terGNUra jamás-GNUChe
have any hardware drawing, printing
> even a single line on the console is required a full screen redraw via memory-
That doesn't seem to explain even a quiet boot up taking several times
longer than 4.19, and package installation over an ethernet connection
(thus not using the console) also tak
On Feb 8, 2019, Tom Li wrote:
> found Alexandre Oliva has stopped maintaining his tree
?!?
I still merge and tag every one of Torvalds' and Greg KH's releases into
the loongson-community tree, resolving trivial conflicts and trying to
verify that it at least builds and passes a
On Apr 3, 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 3 April 2014 18:10, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> FWIW, the same mistake is present in at32.
> I will check others as well now :)
Thanks!
>> Reverting all the changes to loongson2_cpufreq.c in 652ed95d5fa makes
>> cpufreq w
eq stats in
cpufreq-info's output, and freezing shortly thereafter.
> - static struct clk *cpuclk;
> + struct clk *cpuclk;
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.
r CPUs
>> might face other problems when presented with Loongson2-specific icache
>> flush code too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
>> a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva
>
code too. This patch enabled my Yeeloong to boot up successfully
a 3.13-rc kernel for the first time, after a long git bisect session.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva
---
arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/mips/mm/c-r4k.c b/arch/mips
to 4.0.
The shorter cycle towards 3.20, which would make the 2 cycles towards
4.0 shorter than two usual cycles, may help relieve some of the pressure
to get features into 3.19, since the merge window for 4.0 won't be that
far off.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxo
ted files without
corresponding sources in the Linux repository, aside from the various
well-known blobs within the firmware/ subtree and the assorted
blobs-disguised-as-sources that still often pop up in drivers/staging?
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighterhttp://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
>> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it c
llectual
> property rights
How do you reason about binary-only software fulfilling the goal of
copyright? How does it deliver its part of the copyright deal with
society if, even after it goes public domain, still nobody can create
derived works from it because the source co
On Jun 28, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva write:
>> > The GPL does sometimes use the word "may" where it's not clear
>> > whether it
>> > means you have permission or you must be able to. The gen
On Jun 28, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
> from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
> download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
>
ermisssion against a claim of copyright enfrocement. The "further
> restriction" clause is, at it states, only on the exercise of *rights*
> (which I think means those rights licensed to you under copyright law,
> namely the right of distribution and copying).
... and mod
So, let's narrow the scenario to: tivoized machine downloads binary
from protected site, refrains from downloading sources that it could
download, user can still access and copy the binaries, but can't
obtain the sources because the machine opted not to get them.
Now, the user can't distribu
eeth for you. If you're not, and you're not a licensee of code
present in that software, there's no way the GPL can stop you from
imposing whatever restrictions that law permits you to impose, if you
choose to do so. But the GPL won't impose restrictions on others just
in case
meone from
copying or modifying the source code, but I can use hardware to stop
someone from copying or modifying the binary? Or is that not so?
Remember, section 2 talks about modifying *your* *copies* of the
Program, without any reference whatsoever as to whether they're in
source or obj
ay modify your copy or copies of the Program or
> any portion of it" the way you suggest, that would mean that you
> must be able to modify every single copy of the program that is
> distributed to you.
No, it only means that the distributor must not impose restrictions on
my ability to m
On Jun 27, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Yes, but in the scenario I proposed, the source code *is* in the
>> preferred form for making modifications, it just so happens to be
>> behind a barrier you cannot
, with just enough software to download sources
from the network, build the feature-complete software from sources,
and install it.
- Sources are behind network authentication, as above, so although
your device receives them, you can't get to them because they're in
the encrypted disk.
p
> someone from obtaining them
Back when GPLv2 was written, it really was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PR
On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva:
>> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
>> > mean: not directly; i.e. the
with GPLv3, you *can* point at the sources you used, even in a
site that you don't control.
However, if the site takes the sources out, you're still responsible
for providing sources to those who received the sources from you from
that point on. Or something like that, IANAL ;-)
-
nts in GPLv3.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Jun 26, 2007, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You could argue that they do not restrict copying, distribution
>> and modification of the sources in general, only of the specific copy
>> the
On Jun 26, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:54:52PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Consider this scenario: vendor tivoizes Linux in the device, and
>> includes the corresponding sources only in a partition that is
>> theoret
scenario I described was
permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer
On Jun 25, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 03:00:30AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I was here to dispell the lies that were being spread about GPLv3, the
>> spirit and the goals of the GPL, as far as I understood them.
> Just bec
his dissent, not even estoppel defenses
would apply. But IANAL.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
laris
kernel under GPLv3. No surprise here.
I wish I'd got other opinions about this proposal, though, such that I
can make a decision on whether it even makes sense for me to champion
this suggestion towards inclusion in GPLv3.
> at times where one could wonder if he was really sent
On Jun 22, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 01:26:54AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> No, this thread was about additional permissions to combine with other
>> licenses. I didn't suggest anything about relicensing whatsoever,
>
s list can take something
different into account, and make more-informed decisions.
Thanks for listening.
o-o
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org
th v3, and with
GPLv3 plus (potential built-in?) permission to combine with v2. I can
see that it boggles the minds not used to this kind of combination.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler E
happy, happy merging code sharing world
> by fragmenting the licence landscape even more.
I take it that removing barriers to cooperation in GPLv3 by default is
undesirable. Well, then, what can I say? I tried. :-(
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin Amer
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 10:00:22PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Do you agree that if there's any single contributor who thinks it
>> can't be tivoized, and he manages his opinion to prevail in court
>>
On Jun 21, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:23:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> It's not like anyone can safely tivoize devices with GPLv2 already,
> So you really didn't pay any attention to anything people told you?
Yes
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> this is your right with your code. please stop browbeating people who
>>> disagree with you.
>>
>> For the
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/13/354
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/117
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/14/432
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Fre
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:15:03PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Anyone who's not happy about it can still take that portion out,
>> unless you accept changes that make this nearly impossible, which I
>>
ure for
> speaking for that company.
Indeed, compiler engineers are often the bearers of company's voices.
Not!
> I'm simply replying to you that indeed it is not clear for whom you
> speak with all that info in your signature and the email address you
> post from.
Understood.
27;t "no further restrictions" clear enough?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscrib
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> A balance of freedom to the licensee and the licenser. It's my
>>> opinion that GPLv3 potentia
Each copyleft
license insists that it be *the* license. So, in order to be able to
combine two copyleft licenses, you need mutual compatibility
provisions in both. Which is what I was proposing.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member ht
ns I've made, since
otherwise I'd be able to enforce them against tivoizers. And what's
more, I could still use your code in my GPLv2 projects, and enforce
that against tivoizers, and there's nothing you can do to stop me.
So what exactly are you trying to accomplish by pretendi
On Jun 21, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> BTW, I should probably have made clear that, as usual, I was speaking
>> my own mind, not speaking on behalf of FSFL
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If it's input-only, then you can't possibly harm the operation of the
>> network by only listening in, can you?
> Ok, so you consider any anti-piracy measures to be something
On Jun 21, 2007, Al Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:39:07AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> - the kernel Linux could use code from GPLv3 projects
> ... and inherit GPLv3 additional restrictions. No.
Respecting the wishes of the author of t
hat if it takes
> GPLv3+ exception to be compatible with the apache license
For the record, it doesn't, GPLv3 is going to be compatible with the
apache 2.0 license, no additional exceptions needed.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Mem
On Jun 21, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> However, if GPLv3 had a permission to combine/link with code under
>> GPLv2, *and* Linux (and any other projects interested in mutual
>> compatibility) introduced an
the file cannot take it back,
whereas the verification of unsigned software is just a warning, that
you can often bypass by telling the software to go ahead and install
it regardless of signatures.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
tually. It's a lot about making sure no one can acquire a
privileged position, such that every licensee plays under the same
rules. (The copyright holder is not *acquiring* a privileged
position, copyright law had already granted him/her that position.)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www
On Jun 21, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> how can the server tell if it's been tampered with?
> I agree with this statement.
Err... That's a question, not a statement ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.
the hardware ships with only code that simply waits for the user
> to provide some code for it to isntall (which has to be signed in a way
> the hardware likes), then the hardware has nothing to do with the
> license of the software.
Correct. That's pretty much what I said, isn&#
y any chance file them against an earlier draft? Those (for
obvious reasons) no longer appear against the current draft, but
they're still accessible by other means.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla
is an input to a cryptographical algorithm, and a signature is
an output. I could try to come up with more creative definitions, but
you get the idea already.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler E
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> no, one of the rules for the network is that the software must be
>>> certified,
>>
>> In this case you migh
'm
associated, and certainly not on behalf of FSF, with whom I'm not
associated. Just in case this wasn't clear yet ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL
oding one more
time. I hope you find it worth it this time.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.or
ftware.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
go after everyone who ships
> binary kernel modules.
Only copyright holders of Linux can go after them on matters of kernel
drivers. Or is this driver derived from any software copyrighted by
myself? Or did you mean the FSF, with whom I'm not associated in any
way other th
mething even you say they have a right to do)
as long as this right is not used by the software distributor to
impose restrictions on the user's ability to adapt the software to
their own needs. The GPLv3 paragraph above makes a fair concession in
this regard, don't you agree?
--
Alex
On Jun 21, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> but the signature isn't part of the kernel, and the code that checks
>>> the signature is completely independant.
ely to watch you talk about morals in ways
that I agree so much with, even if I dissent in a some details. This
has further increased my admiration for you. Thank you.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.o
On Jun 20, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your analysis stopped at the downside of prohibiting tivoization. You
>> didn't analyze the potential upsides,
> Maybe that'
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> We already know the vendor doesn't care about the user, so why should
>> we take this into account when analyzing the reasoning of the vendor?
> no, we don't know this. you
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2007, Andrew McKay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> However, I don't see
s like making a knife manufacturer
liable for a killing using a knife they made, just because the knife
didn't have technical measures intended to prevent the knife from
being used to kill people.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
>>>> It is the duty of the FSF to defend these freedoms. It's its public
>>>> mission. That's a publ
On Jun 20, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A key is a number. A signature is a number.
And a program is a number.
http://asdf.org/~fatphil/maths/illegal.html
Your point?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin A
ocess halts.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "u
with each other.
We don't fight for the freedoms as goals in themselves. We fight for
them because we understand they're essential for the common good.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
R
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 05:04:52AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
>> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>>
>&g
On Jun 20, 2007, "Jesper Juhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19/06/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > In the GPLv3 world, we have already discussed in this thread h
curity holes.
Which is why the GPLv3 doesn't make the requirement that you stated.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist
On Jun 20, 2007, "H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>>> b) the manufacturer is able to update the device _in_ _the_ _field_.
>> Sure, it would be more costly, but it's not like the
>> law (or the agreements
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:12:57PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Aah, good question. Here's what the draft says about this:
>>
>> Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no
>
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:52:38AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Why should restrictions through patents be unacceptable, but
>> restrictions through hardware and software be acceptable.
>> Both are mean
On Jun 20, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:26:34PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> If the bug is in the non-GPLed BIOS, not in the GPLed code, too bad.
>> One more reason to dislike non-Free Software.
> Maybe the Tivo only loading
r the PPC 405/440 and or for the NXP
> (MIPS based) chips.
As you probably know, this is not a valid excuse to distribute the
software under conditions that disrespect its license.
It doesn't mean you can force them to give you the source code, it
only means the copyright holder can stop them
e equally to all hardware in
> the universe, not specially to some hardware and not others.)
Correct. Whoever distributed you the software entitled you to enjoy
the freedoms wherever you manage to run the software.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin A
On Jun 19, 2007, "Josh Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Free Software is not about freedom of choice. That's an OSI slogan
>> for "if you like, you can shoot your own foot, regardless
t; I should, perhaps, have used a different term - it would
> then have been patently true.
Depends on what the different term was.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PRO
gument is, you can
figure out the solution by yourselves.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
To unsu
s appear to get more people thinking
about relicensing, and then the "impossibilities" of doing it come up.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Fre
t
that the GPL has never permitted you to use whatever rights you have
to impose restrictions on users' freedoms as to GPLed software once
you've (implicitly) accepted the conditions of the license.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member
because I thought it would be useful as a boundary condition.
So just disregard that.
Is there agreement that, comparing tivoized and non-tivoized hardware,
we get'd more contributions if the hardware is not tivoized, because
users can scratch their own itches, than we would for tivoize
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> You're losing all that.
> based on the knowledge shown by these users you aren't loosing much.
Remember, the sample is biased, the hackers who'd like to hack it are
less likel
On Jun 19, 2007, "Dave Neuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But it takes only a small fraction of the tivoizers to decide to take
>> out the locks, when faced with the costs mentioned above, for us to
&g
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> Once again, now with clearer starting conditions (not intended to
>> match TiVo in any way, BTW; don't get into that distraction)
>>
>>
>> Vendor doesn'
ontrol what software runs on the hardware is no different.
For any hardware on which I can run the software, I'm a user there,
and I'm entitled to the rights granted by the license.
It's really this simple. Don't complicate the issue by trying to make
hardware special. It's ju
On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I realise that the latest GPLv3 draft would not pose restrictions
>>> here, as such devices would not
On Jun 19, 2007, Jan Harkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:40:59AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > The actual software is mailed to you on a credit card sized
>> > ROM when you activate service.
> ...
>> The GPLv3 won't remove e
tion) for us to end up better off.
Or so I believe ;-)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
-
T
1 - 100 of 365 matches
Mail list logo
