On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 17:13 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest you talk to a lawyer and review the general comments about
binary modules with him (http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/COPYING.modules
for example). You are writing an addition to linux
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:41:00 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> > to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are av
> You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
> GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
> written for other operating systems and was then ported to Linux.
As one of the copyright holders I make no such exception. Its either a
derived wo
"Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
[...]
> > If you look at the big chip manufacturers (TI, Maxim, Analog Devices,
> > etc.) they publish specs on everything. It would be nice if others did
> > the same.
> One of the arguments that I have heard is fairly old and d
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, jerome lacoste wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 11:55:31 -0500 (EST), linux-os <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
> > Lee Revell wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's not like somebody will have
> >>> some innate commercial advantage over you be
Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to w
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Espe
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
It's not like somebody will have
some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:50 -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> It's not like somebody will have
> some innate commercial advantage over you because they have your
> driver source code.
For a hardware vendor that's not a very compelling argument. Especially
compared to what their IP lawyers are telling
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 19:07 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> There will be a GPL'd layer, and it's likely that sysfs interaction will
> be on the GPL'd side anyway, for purely technical reasons.
Be very careful if distributing your driver in two parts -- a GPL'd part
and a part which you claim is no
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 06:30:59AM -0600, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>...
> ** As noted previously it would be interested to see the opinion of a
> U.S. IP lawyer who has conclusively tested the impact of copy right law
> where the boundary of what constitutes a derivative work was explicitly
> s
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 01:20 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
>
> You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
> GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code wh
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license.
You shouldn't, although many people do. It's a derived work and hence the
GPL is applicable. The only exception we make is for code which was
written for other operating systems and was then ported to L
Pavel Roskin wrote:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories
for some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
subsystem or anything like that. sysctl is not good because the
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't
On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote:
> So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
The "derivative work" distinction in law, which can be quite co
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules
> ...The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is a license statement to binary module
developers...
As noted repeatedly a symbol prefix doesn't appear to carry any legal
weight under U.S. law. In fact the GPL copyright notice is appear
legally limited to the granting of *copy* *rights* per U.S. copyright
law
Zan Lynx wrote:
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstractio
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:56 -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I sugges
On Feb 02, 2005, at 23:08, Jonathan A. George wrote:
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would a
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 09:54:02PM -0700, Zan Lynx wrote:
> So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses
> the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what
> interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't?
Go read the historical posts from Linus that talk
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 08:13:15PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle certain
> frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if STP is
> enabled. There is a hook for that already - see br_handle_frame_hook.
> The propr
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 16:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > >>
> > >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exp
As an observation:
The Linux kernel appears to contain the GPL copyright notice. This
appears to explicitly releases the right to alter anything in a copy
written work which shares that copyright notice. Therefore, all
exported symbols would appear to carry equal weight; thus making the
GPL_
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:50:49 -0500, Kyle Moffett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please consider the benefits to GPL software ;-)
Given his @gnu.org posts, I'd suggest he's between a rock and a hard
place and can't just do that. Companies don't always understand these
arguments :-)
On the techical f
On Feb 02, 2005, at 20:13, Pavel Roskin wrote:
OK, then the "insufficiency" is inability to set and get additional
named variables for network interfaces.
I won't open all details, but suppose I want the bridge to handle
certain frames in a special way, just like BPDU frames are handled if
STP is e
Hi, Joseph!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Joseph Pingenot wrote:
From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm n
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:07:21PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> >>
> >>What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
> >>symbols to the proprietary modules?
> >
> >Ick, no!
Hi, Greg and Patrick!
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot o
>From Pavel Roskin on Wednesday, 02 February, 2005:
>All I want to do is to have a module that would create subdirectories for
>some network interfaces under /sys/class/net/*/, which would contain
>additional parameters for those interfaces. I'm not creating a new
>subsystem or anything like th
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 03:23:30PM -0800, Patrick Mochel wrote:
>
> What is wrong with creating a (GPL'd) abstraction layer that exports
> symbols to the proprietary modules?
Ick, no!
Please consult with a lawyer before trying this. I know a lot of them
consider doing this just as forbidden as
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
>
> I have found the orig
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 05:56:57PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
> to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
> to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
Heh, a gnu.or
Hello!
I'm writing a module under a proprietary license. I decided to use sysfs
to do the configuration. Unfortunately, all sysfs exports are available
to GPL modules only because they are exported by EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL.
I have found the original e-mail where this change was proposed:
http://ww
37 matches
Mail list logo
