Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

Jimmy wrote: I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Who is disabling anything? Of cause

Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: Just don't expect the kernel developers to authorize its use, or show you how to do it! Well of course you can be totally up-front and public about it. That, after all, is the point of GPL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne

Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: >> >> Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. >> What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not >> have a >> gpl-compatible license? > > find /lib/modul

Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:49:04 +0200 Jimmy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. > DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info

Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

On Oct 2 2007 23:49, Jimmy wrote: > > Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. > What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have > a > gpl-compatible license? find /lib/modules/`uname -r` -iname '*.ko' | wc -l: 2021 Pro

Re: Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 11:49:04PM +0200, Jimmy wrote: > Also, how about a list of PROS, explain to me whats so cool about it? People who do binary-only drivers have a much better chance of not doing a derivative work when they only use non-EXPORT_GPL exports, and as a result not being in the wron

Point of gpl-only modules (flame)

I know I'll be getting hell for this, I must be a masochist. Anyway, I've been trying to figure out what purpose the gpl-only code serves. What good comes out of disabling people from probing modules that do not have a gpl-compatible license? Of cause, I would love to see more hardware manufact

dfsg isn't fsf (Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19])

On 2006-12-14, Alan wrote: [] > I doubt any distribution but the FSF "purified" Debian (the one that has > no firmware so doesn't work) would do it. DFSG "purified" Debian[1], please. [1] -- -o--=O C info emacs : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 24 December 2006 09:27, Pavel Machek wrote: > > perhaps printk('Binary only modules are not allowed by kernel license, > but copyright law may still allow them in special cases. Be careful, Come again? > Greg is going tuo sue you at beggining of 2008 if you get it wrong.') > would be a

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Sean wrote: > On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 > Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them >> for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official >> tree. I know just from monitoring this list that

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > > > So let's come out and ban binary modules, rather than pussyfooting > > > > around, if that's what we actually want to do. > > > > > > Give people 12 months warning (time to work out what they're going to do, > > > talk with the legal dept, etc) then make the kernel load only GPL-tagge

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:57:58 -0500 Mark Hounschell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hum. We open sourced our drivers 2 years ago. Now one is 'changing' them > for us. The only way that happens is if they can get in the official > tree. I know just from monitoring this list that our drivers would neve

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > > I agree with Linus on these points. The kernel should not be enforcing > these issues. Leave the lawyers to do that bit. If companies want to > play in the "Grey Area", then it is at their own risk. Binary drivers > are already difficult and expensive for the compa

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote: Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL compatible modules has been set.

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: [...] > > Perhaps we just report on the individual devices then... forget the system > > rating. > OK, *that* I see as potentially useful - I frequently get handed older > boxen with strange gear == gear for

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

gt; so nasty. Microsoft shouldn't be threatening anyone's users; if they > > > > > have a problem, they should be taking it up with the relevant vendor, > > > > > not sueing innocent and relatively shallow-pocketed end-users and > > > > > distri

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

t; > > > personally find the Microsoft promise not to sue _Novell_'s end users > > > > so nasty. Microsoft shouldn't be threatening anyone's users; if they > > > > have a problem, they should be taking it up with the relevant vendor, > > > &g

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> > > have a problem, they should be taking it up with the relevant vendor, > > > not sueing innocent and relatively shallow-pocketed end-users and > > > distributors.) > > > > > > One of the things that I find so interesting about how rabid people >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi, Pavel wrote: > Something is very wrong with German legal system, I'm afraid. In this case you are right. Our legal system is often very strange. __ "Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion: www.deutschlandse

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi! > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real answer is: HELL YES. It's _entirely_ > > possible that a judge would find NVidia and ATI in violation

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

the Microsoft promise not to sue _Novell_'s end users > > so nasty. Microsoft shouldn't be threatening anyone's users; if they > > have a problem, they should be taking it up with the relevant vendor, > > not sueing innocent and relatively shallow-pocketed end-users and &

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 02:34:54 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > > And then there's stuff on this machine that are *not* options, but don't > > matter to me. I see an 'O2 Micro' Firewire in the 'lspci' output. I have > > no idea how well it works. I don't care what it contributes to the score. > >

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > No, no, no... I was never proposing that. I was thinking of something more > along the lines of reporting back on open-source friendliness of > manufacturers of devices, and perhaps on the availability of open source > drivers for the device

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wednesday 20 December 2006 16:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > And if you let yourself get carried away, you can also imagine a little > > multi-platform utility. It would

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/19/06, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 19, 2006, "D. Hazelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the > companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to > comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in

RE: GPL only modules

> > However, those restrictions do not affect those who did not > > agree to them. > > For example, if I buy such a JVM and don't agree to the license > > (assuming I > > don't have to agree to the license to lawfully acquire the > > JVM), I can give > > it to a friend along with any other softwar

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/20/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd agree that "ar", like "mkisofs", doesn't create a derived work, but I > think that "objcopy" does create a derived work, and "ld" does too, by > virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. ... The question is, as a ma

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware specifications are available. It's not about driver a

Re: Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Steven Rostedt wrote: On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote: blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, nor is it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Li

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:00 PST, David Schwartz said: > Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember, the goal is to > allow consumers to know whether or not their system's hardware > specifications are available. It's not about driver availability -- if the > hardware specificati

Lord of the code! [was: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]]

On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 01:27 +, Alan wrote: > > blather and idiotic hogwash. "Information" doesn't want to be free, > nor is > > it somethign you should fight for or necessarily even encourage. > > As a pedant that is the one item I have to pick you up on Linus. > Information wants to be free

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> This is a can of worms, and then some. For instance, let's consider this > Latitude. *THIS* one has an NVidia Quadro NVS 110M in it. > However, that's > not the default graphics card on a Latitude D820. So what number do you > put in? Do you use: > a) the *default* graphics card > b) the on

RE: GPL only modules

Note: Combined responses. > I'd agree that "ar", like "mkisofs", doesn't create a derived work, but I > think that "objcopy" does create a derived work, and "ld" does too, by > virtue of modifying the objects it takes to resolve symbols. Now, you > could distribute to somebody an ar archive of yo

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny said: > On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? > > It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware

RE: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sun, 2006-12-17 at 11:11 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, David Schwartz wrote: > > That makes it clear that it's not about giving us the fruits of years of > > your own work but that it's about enabling us to do our own work. (I would > > have no objection to also requir

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 19, 2006, "Horst H. von Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other >> equivalent, as provided by copyright law. >> By choosing 'acknowledges' as the verb, the licensee says explicitly >> th

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 19, 2006, "D. Hazelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However I have a feeling that the lawyers in the employ of the > companies that ship BLOB drivers say that all they need to do to > comply with the GPL is to ship the glue-code in source form. > And I have to admit that this does seem to

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It makes no difference whether the "mere aggregation" paragraph kicks in > because the "mere aggregation" paragraph is *explaining* the *law*. What > matters is what the law actually *says*. You mean "mere aggregation" is defined in c

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see why you can't distribute a single DVD that combines the contents > of the two you bought, so long as you destroy the originals. Because, for example, per Brazilian law since 1998, fair use only grants you the right to copy

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No automated, mechanical process can create a derivative work of software. > (With a few exceptions not relevant here.) Can you explain what mechanisms are involved in copyright monopolies over object code, then? (there's a hint at ht

Re: GPL only modules

>> [GPL acknowledging fair-use rights] > Pure noise, a license can't take them away in any case. A bare license probably cannot take them away, since you haven't agreed to anything. But (1) that may not be true in all legal systems, and (2) a contract-based license can take it away (e.g. an NDA)

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 12:11, Bill Nottingham wrote: >Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: >> FWIW: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? >> ret = pciids_to_names(data) >> File

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:46:30 -0500, Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/usr/share/misc/pci.ids' > > That file apparently doesn't exist on an FC6 i686 system Indeed, I forgot to document that. Ubuntu has it there (package pciutils), and upd

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Gene Heskett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: > FWIW: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] src]# python list-kernel-hardware.py > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 70, in ? > ret = pciids_to_names(data) > File "list-kernel-hardware.py", line 11, in pciids_to_names > pci

Re: GPL only modules

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, D. Hazelton wrote: This doesn't negate any problems with people making Blob drivers, because, as you pointed out, under the same laws they aren't a derivative work, which means that that clause of the license doesn't apply. Now if the GPL contained a clause specifically defi

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First sale has nothing to do with this. First sale applies to the > redistribution or resale of copies you have purchased, not with the > right to make additional copies. First sale is exactly what this is about. Nobody needs to make "ad

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Tuesday 19 December 2006 08:56, Diego Calleja wrote: >El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: >> I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize >> the current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness >> matrix sit

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

El Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:57:45 +1100, Marek Wawrzyczny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to utilize the > current vendor/device PCI ID database to create Linux friendliness matrix > site? I've a script (attached) that looks into /lib/modules

Re: GPL only modules

Sanjoy Mahajan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any > > rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit > > too hard. > > From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): > > This License acknowledges your ri

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sunday 17 December 2006 21:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Since `works with' may sound a bit too vague, something like > `LinuxFriendly(tm)', with a happy penguin logo? It would be really cool to see penguin logos on hardware :) I had another, probably crazy idea. Would it be possible to util

Re: GPL only modules

D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > The GPL is a License that covers how the code may be used, modified and > distributed. This is the reason that the FSF people had to make the big > exception for Bison, because the parser skeleton is such an integral part of > Bison (Bison itself,

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any > rights unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit > too hard. >From section 2 (GPLv3, draft 2): This License acknowledges your rights of "fair use" or other equivalent, as provided by c

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? >> >> The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both >> forms ar

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >>> In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? >> >> The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both >> forms ar

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 12:16, David Schwartz wrote: > Combined responses to save bandwidth and reduce the number of times people > have to press "d". > > > Agreed. You missed the point. > > I don't understand how you could lead with "agreed" and then proceed to > completely ignore the entire po

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Static vs dynamic matters for whether it's an AGGREGATE work. Clearly, > static linking aggregates the library with the other program in the same > binary. There's no question about that. And that _does_ have meaning from > a copyright law angle, sin

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 20:35, David Schwartz wrote: > > For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an > > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not > > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere > > aggregation" paragraph k

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 14:41, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license- > > compatible, are certainly not derivative works. > > Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just li

RE: GPL only modules

Combined responses: > So therefore I don't think you can reasonably claim that static > vs. dynamic linking is only a technical difference. There are clearly > other differences when it comes to distribution of the resulting > binaries. We're only talking about the special case of GPL'd works.

RE: GPL only modules

> For both static and dynamic linking, you might claim the output is an > aggregate, but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not > the output is a work based on the program, and whether the "mere > aggregation" paragraph kicks in. > > If the output is not an aggregate, which is quite

RE: GPL only modules

> > It's also not clear that an aggregate work is in fact > > a single work for any legal purpose other than the aggregator's claim to > > copyright. > Not sure what you're trying to say there - what are we talking about > here other than the copyright? We are talking about two different possibl

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds writes: > > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > > There is in fact a pretty substantial non-technical difference between > > static and dynamic linking. If I create a binary by static linking > > and I include some library, and I distribute that binary to someone >

Re: GPL only modules

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > There is in fact a pretty substantial non-technical difference between > static and dynamic linking. If I create a binary by static linking > and I include some library, and I distribute that binary to someone > else, the recipient doesn't need to h

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds writes: > "Derivation" has nothing to do with "linking". Either it's derived or it > is not, and "linking" simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether > it's static or dynamic. That's a detail that simply doesn't have anythign > at all to do with "derivative work". There is

Re: GPL only modules

Junio C Hamano writes: > Excuse me, but are you two discussing "ld"? ;-) Oops. Yes. :) Paul. - 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

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. >> Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? > Here's how it relates: > - if a program is n

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On 12/18/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In other words, it means that we are pushing a agenda that is no longer neither a technical issue (it's clearly technically _worse_ to not be able to do something) _nor_ a legal issue. So tell me, what does the proposed blocking actually do

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Static vs dynamic matters for whether it's an AGGREGATE work. Clearly, > static linking aggregates the library with the other program in the same > binary. There's no question about that. And that _does_ have meaning from > a copyright law

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both forms are sub

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:41:17PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license- > > compatible, are certainly not derivative works. > > Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might no

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, karderio wrote: > > I don't see how what is proposed for blocking non GPL modules at all > touches the definition of derived work. Even if according to law and the > GPL, binary modules are legal, the proposed changes could still be > made. .. and then what does that mean?

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:04:07PM +0100, karderio wrote: > I have realised that the proposed changes do not *impose* any more > restriction on the use of the kernel than currently exists. Currently > the Kernel is licenced to impose the same licence on derived works, > enforce distribution of sour

RE: GPL only modules

> Static vs dynamic matters for whether it's an AGGREGATE work. Clearly, > static linking aggregates the library with the other program in the same > binary. There's no question about that. And that _does_ have meaning from > a copyright law angle, since if you don't have permission to ship > aggr

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Hi :o) On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:55 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But the point is, "derived work" is not what _you_ or _I_ define. It's > what copyright law defines. Of course not. I never suggested trying to define a derived work. > And trying to push that definition too far is a total disast

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ah, okay. However I'm quite sure that there are more ways to accomplish the tasks handled by the code in the header files (in most cases). Well, that may be so. Unfortunately, Lexmark vs. Static Controls actually says that even if there are o

Re: GPL only modules

On Monday 18 December 2006 10:47, Dave Neuer wrote: > On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to > > > > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our a

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > In other words, in the GPL, "Program" does NOT mean "binary". Never has. > > Agreed. So what? How does this relate with the point above? > > The binary is a Program, as much as the sources are a Program. Both > forms are subject to copyright

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 18, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't have any rights > unless we give you additional rights explicitly" angle a bit too hard. Maybe it's just a matter of perception. I don't see it that way from the inside. How ab

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > So I guess you approve of the reformulation of LGPL as an additional > permission on top of GPL, as in its draft at gplv3.fsf.org, right? Yes. I think that part of the GPLv3 is a good idea. That said, I think they are still pushing the "you don't

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 17, 2006, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, certain projects like OpenAFS, while not license- > compatible, are certainly not derivative works. Certainly a big chunk of OpenAFS might not be, just like a big chunk of other non-GPL drivers for Linux. But what abo

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 17, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For example, glibc could easily have just come out and said the thing that > is obvious to any sane person: "using this library as just a standard > library does not make your program a derived work". > There really wassn't much need

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Eric W. Biederman wrote: Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into legal theory: Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible license are inconsiderate and rude. ?? Please don't be rude. ??? J Eric - To unsubscribe from

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/18/06, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote: > I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example > below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do > whatever it is supposed to do _unless_

RE: GPL only modules

Combined responses to save bandwidth and reduce the number of times people have to press "d". > Agreed. You missed the point. I don't understand how you could lead with "agreed" and then proceed to completely ignore the entire point I just made. > Since the Linux Kernel header files > contain a

Re: GPL only modules

On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:38:38AM -0500, Dave Neuer wrote: > I think this is the key, both with libraries and w/ your book example > below; the concept of independant "meaning." If your code doesn't do > whatever it is supposed to do _unless_ it is linked with _my_ code, > then it seems fairly cle

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/17/06, D. Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote: > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to > > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking > > operations a good number of them (dependin

Re: GPL only modules

On 12/17/06, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Linking does have one thing that it implies: it's maybe a bit "closer" relationship between the parts than "mkisofs" implies. So there is definitely a higher _correlation_ between "derived work" and "linking", but it's really a correlation,

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

Things we can say without being hypocrites and without getting into legal theory: Kernel modules without source, or that don't have a GPL compatible license are inconsiderate and rude. Please don't be rude. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the bo

Re: GPL only modules

Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Dec 14 2006 09:52, Chris Wedgwood wrote: >>On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 05:38:27PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >>> Yes, EXPORT_SYMBOL_INTERNAL would make a lot more sense. >> >>A quick grep shows that changing this now would require updating >>near

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

> It's just that I'm so damn tired of this whole thing. I'm tired of > people thinking they have a right to violate my copyright all the time. > I'm tired of people and companies somehow treating our license in ways > that are blatantly wrong and feeling fine about it. Because we are a > loose ba

Re: GPL only modules

Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> Why do people think that using "ln" is _any_ different from using >> "mkisofs". Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the >> difference - really? > > The difference - really - at least for static linkin

Re: GPL only modules

Linus Torvalds writes: > Why do people think that using "ln" is _any_ different from using > "mkisofs". Both create one file that contains multiple pieces. What's the > difference - really? The difference - really - at least for static linking - is that "ln" makes modifications to each piece to

Re: GPL only modules

On Sunday 17 December 2006 16:32, David Schwartz wrote: > > I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to > > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking > > operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and > > version) are inline assembly

RE: GPL only modules

> I would argue that this is _particularly_ pertinent with regards to > Linux. For example, if you look at many of our atomics or locking > operations a good number of them (depending on architecture and > version) are inline assembly that are directly output into the code > which uses them. As

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 09:20:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > Anything else, you have to make some really scary decisions. Can a judge > > decide that a binary module is a derived work even though you didn't > > actually use any code? The real

Re: GPL only modules

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they > > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and > > the FSF's position that anyt

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 17, 2006, at 08:54:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Do you REALLY believe that a binary becomes a "derived work" of any random library that it gets linked against? If that's not "fair use" of a library that implements a standard libr

Re: GPL only modules

On Sunday 17 December 2006 14:54, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they > > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and > > the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably > > have been

Re: GPL only modules

On Dec 16, 2006, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The whole reason the LGPL exists is that people realized that if they > don't do something like that, the GPL would have been tried in court, and > the FSF's position that anything that touches GPL'd code would probably > have been sh

Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 16 December 2006 05:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Saturday, 16 December 2006 07:43, Willy Tarreau wrote: > [...] > >I think the most important problem with the binary-only drivers is that > > we can't support their users _at_ _all_, but so

  1   2   3   >