> > That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
> > collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
> > there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
> > the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together"
> > is not protected by copyright:
David Schwartz wrote:
>>That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
>>collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology.
>>If there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and
>>ordering the parts. The creation of works that "can be
>>linked together" is not protected by
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 21:47 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
> > > > different.
> > >
>
> That is the point: the result is not a single work. It is a
> collection or compilation of works, just like an anthology. If
> there is any creativity involved, is in choosing and ordering
> the parts. The creation of works that "can be linked together"
> is not protected by copyright: the liter
David Schwartz wrote:
>> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
>> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
>
>
>>No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
>>non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a
>>collective work where the real intellectually-nove
> > What compels you to agree with an EULA?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 06:54:29PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do not acquire
> lawful possession of the work.
What about cases where you pay for the software before you're allowed
to see the EU
This thread should probably get moved off-list soon, it's like
beating the dead horse long after its flesh has decayed and its
bones disintegrated to dust.
On Apr 13, 2005, at 21:54, David Schwartz wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Yes, the GPL can give you righ
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
> > EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
> What compels you to agree with an EULA?
If you do not agree with the EULA, you cannot and do no
> >Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that
> >uses a library creates a derivative work of that library?
> No. Compiling and linking are mechanical,
> non-intellectually-novel acts. At most, you have a collective
> work where the real intellectually-novel work was to select
> w
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 04:53:56PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > > This is different. They are not giving the source at all. The licence
> > > for those object files _has_ to be different. _They_ want it to be
> > > different.
> >
> > Sure, but in this case, the binary firmware blob is also a bi
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> > No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> > under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
> > want from me? A prom
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:28:59PM -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote:
> Failure to have a click-through license means that there is no acceptance,
> which is a fundamental part of contract law. No acceptance, no
> contract, no exceptions.
False.
For example, you can indicate acceptance of the GPL by ex
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> > > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > > upheld in the USA.
> > > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
>
> > http://www.freibr
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 10:46 pm, Raul Miller wrote:
> In essence, you're claiming that the difference between Davidson
> & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004) and other cases such as
> Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000)
> is that the presence of a click-th
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:45:43PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> This wasn't a copyright case. The court only refused to uphold the
> agreement because there was no oppurtunity to review the agreement before
> purchase. So it certainly wouldn't apply to a click-through type agreement.
http:
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 20:45 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[snip]
> > A did put a GPL notice on it. He can't change his mind later.
> Then he should give us the source.
[snip]
> The fact remains that those firmware blob have no licence, and thus defacto
> fall under the GPL.
>
> > Moreover, the firmare
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to
>>> agree to the license to *create* the derivative work. If
>>> you were able to create the derivative work under first
>>> sale or fair use rights, then the restrictions in the
>>> contract
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:14:17PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> No one will ever do that. If you are distributing the software I released
> under GPL, be sure I _will_ sue you if you break the licence. What do you
> want from me? A promise I won't sue you if you don't? That is implicit
> in the ex
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
> > license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
> > the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
> > restrictions in the contract would not apply to yo
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > e.g. an image
> > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > distribute
> > that image freely?
>
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could tra
> > > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
> > Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely
> > upheld in the USA.
> > If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
> http://www.freibrunlaw.com/articles/articl22.htm
This wasn't a
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
> > of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
> > Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
> > y
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:05:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Yes, the GPL can give you rights you wouldn't otherwise have. A
> EULA can take away rights you would otherwise have.
What compels you to agree with an EULA?
> In the few court cases that have directly addresses shrink-
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:01:15PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Would you agree that compiling and linking a program that uses
> a library creates a derivative work of that library?
No, I would not.
Creating a derivative work requires creativity, and a linker is not
creative.
The copyrig
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The EULA is irrelevant in germany and in many parts of the USA.
>
> Really? I was under the impression EULA's were routinely upheld in the
> USA.
> If you have any references for that, I'd love to hear them.
http://www.freibrunlaw.com/article
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > If you buy a W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work,
> > > e.g. an image
> > > of your installation, under the fair use rights (IANAL). Can you
> > > distribute
> > > that image freely?
> > I would say that if not for the EULA, yo
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:44:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I would say that if not for the EULA, you could transfer ownership
> of the image to someone else. And if you legally acquired two copies of
> Windows, you could install both of them and transfer them. Otherwise,
> you could no
David Schwartz wrote:
>>David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you buy a
>>W*nd*ws install CD, you can create a derived work, e.g. an
>>image of your installation, under the fair use rights
>>(IANAL). Can you distribute that image freely?
>>
>
>I would say that if not for the EULA, you co
> David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>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 is conditional on how th
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are ch
David Schwartz wrote:
This would, of course, only make sense if you *had* to agree to the
license to *create* the derivative work. If you were able to create
the derivative work under first sale or fair use rights, then the
restrictions in the contract would not apply to you.
The only way to *c
David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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 is conditional on how the licensee a
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:40:48AM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> Which reminds me. The only reason why this thread belongs here, IMHO,
> it's because when it comes to GPL, it really doesn't matter what
> FSF's interpretation is, or anyone else's. The authors are choosing
> GPL as a license, so _thi
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
(and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we'
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:54:50PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> In this case, A is clearly the author (onwer of rights) of the firmware.
> D is fine on respect of the other A's, since their source is actually
> (and clearly) there. It's the missing source case we're considering
> and the number o
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 18:25 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
[...]
> > A - is the Author (or rights owner) of the software (GPL'ed);
> > B - is an user, who got the a copy of the software from A;
> > C - is another user, who got a copy indir
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:24:10AM +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
> bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
> either.
This point is a controversial point. Different people make different
claims.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:31:53PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Perhaps you could cite the law that restricts to the copyright
> holder the right to restrict the distribution of derivative works. I can
> cite the laws that restrict all those other things and clearly *don't*
> mention distri
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you
> could it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there
> is no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you
> to withhold from m
David Schwartz writes:
>>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 is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute
> > You could do that be means of a contract, but I don't think you could
> > it do by means of a copyright license. The problem is that there is
> > no right to control the distribution of derivative works for you to
> > withhold from me.
> Wrong, sorry. Copyright is a *monopoly* on some act
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:12:22PM +0200, Marco Colombo wrote:
> [I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
> threading somehow.]
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
> are the
> > ones handling the infrastruc
[I'm not subscribed, so this in not a real reply - sorry if it breaks
threading somehow.]
Sven Luther wrote:
> The ftp-master are the ones reviewing the licencing problems, and they
are the
> ones handling the infrastructure, and putting their responsability on the
> stake. If they feel that some
Michael Poole wrote:
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 is conditional on how the licensee agrees to distribute (or not
di
Humberto Massa writes:
> David Schwartz wrote:
>
>> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> >> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> >> work of your work and they ha
David Schwartz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> The way you stop someone from distributing part of your work is
>> by arguing that the work they are distributing is a derivative
>> work of your work and they had no right to *make* it in the first
>> place
Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Every book in my book shelf is software?
If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
Actually, they did it to spite the patent holders.
[]s
Massa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bo
Glenn Maynard wrote:
I've heard the claim, several times, that that creating a derivative
work requires creative input, that linking stuff together with "ld" is
completely uncreative, therefore no derivative work is created. (I'm
not sure if you're making (here or elsewhere) that claim, but it see
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit
> > you to restrict
> > the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to
> > restrict the
> > distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees
> > The GPL applies to distributing a Linux binary I just made even
> > though nobody ever chose to apply the GPL to the binary I just made
> > only because the binary I just made is a derivative work of the
> > Linux kernel, and the authors of that work chose to apply the GPL to
> > it.
> How ca
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:18:11PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Well that's the problem. While copyright law does permit you to restrict
> the right to create derivative works, it doesn't permit you to restrict the
> distribution of lawfully created derivative works to licensees of the
> or
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> However, then you cannot legally copy it at all, because it contains
>> part of the original author's copyrighted work and therefore can only
>> legally be copied with the permission of the author.
> The way you stop someone from distributing
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 08:07:03PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The way you stop someone from distributing part of your
> > work is by arguing
> > that the work they are distributing is a derivative work of
> > your work and
> > they had no right to *make* it in the first place. See, fo
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:42:17 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Every book in my book shelf is software?
>
> If you digitalize it, yes.
AFAIK software only refers to programs, not to arbitrary sequences of
bytes. An MP3 file isn't "software". Although it surely isn't hardware
either.
--
Giusepp
(Henning Makholm, I assume; I seem to be missing the actual message and
David's mailer forgot to put a quote header on the original reply):
> > >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> > >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> > >
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> >> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> >> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> >> point is that distribut
> > It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 04:38:15PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Even RedHat with a stronger financial background than Debian considered
> the MP3 patents being serious enough to remove MP3 support.
It's silly to treat financial risk as being a on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:31:22PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > If Debian was at least consistent.
> >
> > Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> > than RedHat?
>
> It's impossible to treat patents
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
>> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
>> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
>> point is that distribution of the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:34:00PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a much more liberal interpretation of MP3 patent issues
> than RedHat?
It's impossible to treat patents consistently.
The U.S. patent office, at least, has granted patents on nat
> I think the "derivative work" angle is a red herring. I do not think
> that either of the two parts that are being linked together (i.e. the
> driver and the firmware) are derivates of the other. The relevant
> point is that distribution of the linked _result_ is nevertheless
> subject to the c
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>> GFDL documentation will still be available in the non-free archive.
>
> Assuming you have an online connection and a frie
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 20:01 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > Because we already know that patents on MP3 decoders are not
> > enforceable. Furthermore, the holders of these patents have repeatedly
>
> How do you know the patents aren't enforceable?
Because decoding a MP3 is a trivial operat
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:42:51PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 à 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > > but t
Le vendredi 08 avril 2005 Ã 19:34 +0200, Adrian Bunk a Ãcrit :
> > When there are several possible interpretations, you have to pick up the
> > more conservative one, as it's not up to us to make the interpretation,
> > but to a court.
>
> If Debian was at least consistent.
>
> Why has Debian a m
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > > firmwares in the
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 08:54:40AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >...
> > > > If your statement was true
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:41:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, have any of you read the analysis i made, where i claim, rooted
> in the GPL FAQ and with examples, why i believe that the firmware can
> be considerated a non derivative of the linux kernel.
I hadn't. I did just now. Here's my
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 09:08 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
> >patents.
You have lots of "possible legal problems" of any kind. Basically
everyone can sue you for (almost) whatever he wants almost all ofth
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Debian doesn't seem to care much about the possible legal problems of
patents.
The possible legal problem of software patents is, up to the present
time, AFAICT, not producing effects yet in Europe, and is a non-problem
in jurisdictions like mine (down here neither business
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:07:23PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PRO
On Fri, 8 April 2005 09:22:00 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
>
> > As a contrast, read the discussion between Christoph and Arjan in a part
> > of this thread how to move firmware out of kernel drivers without
> > problems for the use
Hi,
Humberto Massa wrote:
> First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
> making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
> instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
> possible.
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
Th
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:50:14PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> >The fact is also that mixing them with a GPLed software gives
> >an result you can't redistribute - although it seems many people
> >disagree with that assertion now.
>
> This is only true if the result
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:15:45PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 09:03 -0400, Richard B. Johnson a écrit :
> > Well it doesn't make any difference. If GPL has degenerated to
> > where one can't upload microcode to a device as part of its
> > initialization, without havin
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:15:07AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> This is where you are wrong IMMHO. All that is needed for you
> to distribute the hexdump blob under the GPL is a declaration
> from the copyright holder saying "this, to me, is the
> preferred form for modification of the firmware a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 04:56:50AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [quoting me]
>
> >> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> >> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> >> than in the situa
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:10:43AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> > this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> > aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 11:50:54AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> >Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> >>You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> >>nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> >>firm
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:55:44PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > > the prog
Le jeudi 07 avril 2005 à 23:07 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that the GFDL sucks has
> > nothing to do with the firmware issue. With the current situation of
> > firmwares in the kernel, it is illegal to redistribute binary images of
> > the kernel. Fu
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > > legal risks than comm
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > > modifications to firmware. Personally I would
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:05:31PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> I think we have a real problem, however, in cases where the source
> file that holds only the firmware data contains a GPL notice.
Sure: the GPL notice isn't completely valid. But I think people have
already decided that th
Scripsit "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[quoting me]
>> No, it is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
>> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
>> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
> Would you maint
> > Also, "mere aggregation" is a term from the GPL. You can read what
> > it says there yourself. But basically it's there so that people make
> > a distinction between the program itself and other stuff that isn't
> > the program.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:20:50PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > modifications to firmware. Personally I would be surprised
> > but those hunks are small enough it could have been written
> > No-one is saying that the linker "merely aggregates" object
> > code for the driver; what *is* being said is: in the case of
> > firmware, especially if the firmware is neither a derivative
> > work on the kernel (see above) nor the firmware includes part
> > of the kernel (duh), it is *fairly
Scripsit Humberto Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After a *lot* of discussion, it was deliberated on d-l that
> this is not that tricky at all, and that the "mere
> aggregation" clause applies to the combination, for various
> reasons, with a great degree of safety.
When was this alleged conclusion r
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
> > legal risks than commercial distributions, can you explain why Debian
> > exposes the legal
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the
> > driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
> > that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
> > you s
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >...
> > The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> > novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily
> > muster
>
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 04 avril 2005 à 21:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:05:18PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > On Apr 04, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > What if we don't want to do so? I kno
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>...
> The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can more easily muster
> the ressources to fight of a legal case, even one which is a dubious one,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:26:17AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> If you believe the linker "merely aggregates" the object code for the
> driver with the data for the firmware, I can't see how you can argue
> that any linking is anything but mere aggregation. In neither case can
> you separate the
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > > is only needed on old/buggy hardware
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
> > is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> > Or to support advanced features which can
Am Donnerstag, 7. April 2005 17:01 schrieb Humberto Massa:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
>
> >
> > As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
> > achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
> > discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches w
Oliver Neukum wrote:
As this has been discussed numerous times and consensus never
achieved and is unlikely to be achieved, I suggest that you keep this
discussion internal to Debian until at least you have patches which
can be evaluated and discussed. Until then Debian may do to its
kernel w
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
