Chris Friesen writes:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>>
>>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she
may have released the work under, can still revoke t
Vlad writes:
> Relatime seems to be wasteful of both IO resources _and_ CPU cycles.
> Instead of performing a single IO operation (as atime does), relatime
> performs at least three IO operations and three CPU-dependent
> operations:
>
> 1) a read IO operation to find out the old atime
> 2) a read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> if the GPL can excercise control over compilations, then if Oracle
>>> were to ship a Oracle Linux live CD that contained the Oracle Database
>>>
t; contains code not covered by the gPL)
Again, did you miss where I pointed out that this makes it *worse* for
Tivo, because they are tying together -- and making inseparable -- a
combination that would otherwise be "mere aggregation"?
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list:
re, the GPL
would be worded differently than it is -- and have different effects
than most people believe it does.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
ather than whether
the GPL is worded to control the rights to compilations-in-general
that include GPLed works.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
gation" of
>> the functions it contains.)
>>
>> Michael Poole
>
> Of course it's not mere aggregation. The functions in a C file are
> creatively combined. How many times do I have to say that the opposite of
> "mere aggregation" is creative combination?
goes: I, for one, have better
things to do than explain why a C file is not a "mere aggregation" of
the functions it contains.)
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
d they are after The
> Moneys..
>
> no?
The GPL does not guarantee anyone a viable business model. Following
it is not conditional on profitability. It is only conditional on
exercising rights that are granted by the GPL.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> Please retract that claim. I have said no such thing, and have
>> avoided saying anything that I thought might be misconstrued in that
>> direction.
>>
>> To be absolutely clear: My c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> no, saying that the result must be acceptable to other software (in
>>> this case the software running in the BIOS) is not part of the source
>>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> this is very much NOT true. if you take the source the provide you can
>>> compile a kernel that will run on the tivo, the only thing you have to
>
t;) to be used in a computer in order to
bring about a certain result. That result is making it boot on the
PVR. Source code simply means the original forms or inputs used to
generate machine-readable statements.
Michael Poole
>>A "computer program" is a set of statements or instru
more or less restrictive in what they run? If newer
models are more restrictive, I think that also speaks to whether Tivo
thinks it is conveying complete source code.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
s hardware or bootloader). If that is possible, I will retract
what I said. If it is not possible, they are omitting part of the
program's source code:
A "computer program" is a set of statements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to
GPL requires that
distributors of binary versions provide complete source code, not just
the parts of source code that are convenient.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo inf
eived cost of having a hole
will exceed the perceived cost of plugging it.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
uot;.
True. The GPL always about allowing someone to modify software that
they received from someone else. Tivo's Linux kernel images qualify
both as softare that they distribute to others and software that is
loaded onto hardware that they created. The concern at hand is not
ab
t likely a EULA or other shrink-wrap
agreement. Given that most such recognized agreements deal with
software or services rather than hardware, I am not sure a court would
recognize a hardware EULA as being binding. (I suspect this is the
direction you were heading with the paragraph below.)
Michael Po
their hardware)
Even as straw men go, that is pretty incoherent.
First, end users buy and use the hardware in question. It does not
belong to Tivo, so the analogy to his laptop fails there.
Second, the important access is not to the hardware, but to the bits
used to build the version of Linux t
But the mangling method isn't proprietary. What is proprietary is a number
> that is input to a step of the process. (AFAICT the signing process is done
> with proprietary tools, but the process itself isn't)
That does not help them at all. In fact, it is probably *worse* for
Tivo
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007 09:54:39 Michael Poole wrote:
>> Daniel Hazelton writes:
>> > But your server doesn't run the internet. TiVO may use phone lines to
>> > connect a device to their server (and this is an example - I don't know
&
that Tivo recommends a broadband Ethernet
connection rather than a phone line) or that we should analyze based
on DRM signatures distributed separately from the kernel (when they
are not). We are arguing about the universe we inhabit, not some
alternative where the GPL might actually be the Groundhog
nary and run it on a general
purpose PC. Right? At most it would take clever linker tricks to
make the change small enough.
As to the suggestion that vendors would use another kernel: I would
not mind. A huge fraction of the interesting and useful work in open
source kernels happens in Linux (firs
Florin Malita writes:
> On 06/15/2007 12:18 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
>> Florin Malita writes:
>>
>>
>>> On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
>>>
>>>> The GPL cares about the key
>>>> used to generate an integral part o
Florin Malita writes:
> On 06/15/2007 10:56 AM, Michael Poole wrote:
>> The GPL cares about the key
>> used to generate an integral part of the executable form of the GPLed
>> work.
>
> GLPv2 doesn't: why do you think the digital signature is an integral
>
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > I.e. you cannot just cleverly define "source code" to include
>> > something unrelated and then pretend that it's all in one work. And
>> > that's exactly what the
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> I do not suggest that copyright subsists in the signature or in the
>> >> signing key. Whether it does is irrelevant to the signing key
>> >> being part of the s
Ingo Molnar writes:
> * Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > However, since the signing is an automated process it cannot
>> > generate a "new" work - at least, not under the laws of the US - so
>> > the signature itself cannot have a
gt;> signature.
>
> I can find no such requirement in the GPLv2. In fact, it actually says that
> you don't even have to be able to *USE* the program. See section 12 of the
> GPL if you don't believe me.
Section 12 of the GPL(v2) is a warranty and liability discla
perly).
Similarly, copyright might not subsist in a simple linker script --
its content being determined by the operating system and perhaps the
rest of the program's source code -- but under the GPL, the linker
script would be part of the source code for a compiled version.
Michael Poole
-
To
th.
What is necessary is that the "work based on the [GPLed] Program" be
more than a mere aggregation of the GPLed component(s) with non-GPLed
components. The fact that part of the work-as-a-whole is a descriptor
of the GPLed part does not mean all descriptions the GPLed part are
g
Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Michael Poole wrote:
>>
>> If the DRM signature and program executable are coupled such that they
>> are not useful when separated, the implication to me is that they form
>> one work that is based on the original Program.
Daniel Hazelton writes:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> The fundamental reason for this is that neither the executable code
>> nor the digital signature serves the desired function alone. The user
>> received a copy of the executable for a pa
ures remains open. In the mean time, it makes
more sense for the FSF to issue a new license that squarely addresses
this -- such as the GPLv3 -- and persuade as many developers as
possible that using it is the best way to protect free software.)
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
Matt Keenan writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>> Matt Keenan writes:
>>
>>
>>> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>>
>>>> Err, no. Software, per legal definitions in Brazil, US and elsewhere,
>>>> require some physical support. That'
enerate digital signatures) differently than a "GPL-incompatible"
patent area. If a software distributor cannot simultaneously comply
with the GPL and his other obligations, he should either not
distribute the software or be prepared to face the liability from
breaching his obligations.
tatements or instructions to be
used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about
a certain result.
As its purpose is to outline the scope of copyright law, this
definition is made under the authority granted to Congress by Article
I, Section 8 of the United States Constitu
e library, and cannot
qualify for the lower threshold of section 5. Section 5 is talking
about late binding to the library; dynamic linking is one example.
For programs distributed as object code that does contain part of the
library, the distributor must -- sooner or later -- comply with 6(a)
(allow the
ontains copyrightable
elements from the original work.
Even if some court agrees with your hypothesis that the compiled
program is a derivative work of the source (which I doubt would
happen), and you find some permission outside of the GPL to prepare
that derivative work, you still need permission to
es (copy,
> distribution of copies, making *and* distribution of derivative works).
Copyright law only _explicitly_ grants a monopoly on preparation of
derivative works. However, it is trivial, and overwhelmingly common,
for a copyright owner to grant a license to create a derivative work
that
the previous
(lengthy and multiple) discussions about this topic.
Michael Poole
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What seems to happen is that the kernel stops seeing interrupts on the
> > IRQ shared by eth0 (my outside interface) and usb-uhci. I can still
> > ssh in on eth1, and when I do, syslog contains things like "eth0:
> > Interrupt timed out" and usb-uhci grip
Since about 2.4.2, I have been seeing intermittent hangs on my system;
usually once or twice a week, but once just 10 minutes after rebooting.
What seems to happen is that the kernel stops seeing interrupts on the
IRQ shared by eth0 (my outside interface) and usb-uhci. I can still
ssh in on eth1
Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Looks like TUX caught MS's attention:
> > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
> >
> > Anyone know if their method of achieveing this is as flexible as TUX, or is
> > their "SWC 3.0" sim
Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, David S. Miller wrote:
>
> > Every Linux inetd in the world would instantly stop working.
>
> Why should it? inetd.c does not touch fd flags. No F_SETFL, no
> O_NONBLOCK, no fcntl. Why should inetd fail with a changed accept(2)
46 matches
Mail list logo
