In a recent (haven't tested the latest git, but I have tested one pulled down
1/29 - I think it's 24e1c13) I see the following errors when the AES crypto
module is loaded:
[ 27.786935] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_it_tab
[ 27.786984] aes_x86_64: Unknown symbol crypto_aes_set_key
[ 27.78
On Friday 01 February 2008 23:42:47 Gabriel C wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Another problem is one I wasn't able to find any kind of trigger for,
> > other than just running XChat. Every so often XChat would seem to freeze
> > - but if run from the command line,
On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> PC. (This is without the nmi_watchdog=1 option.) However, the ATA layer is
> failing to initialise:
>
> Driver 'sd' needs updating - please use bus_type me
On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> > @@ -145,6 +145,10 @@ as small as possible, and that all potential
> > interfaces are tested as well as they can be (unused interfaces are
> > pretty much impossible to test for
On Sunday 03 February 2008 00:03:10 Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:37PM -0500, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 19:22:49 Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 04:44:57PM +0200, Heikki Orsila wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>
On Sunday 03 February 2008 12:36:33 Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 February 2008 18:40:55 Chris Rankin wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have tried to boot a 2.6.24 kernel on my 1 GHz Coppermine / 512 MB RAM
> >> PC. (This i
-page-flags.h: No such file or directory
Reported-by: Daniel Hazelton
Signed-off-by: David Howells
cc: Fengguang Wu
---
tools/vm/page-types.c |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/vm/page-types.c b/tools/vm/page-types.c
index cd1b03e..b76edf2 100644
--- a
After doing any build in the kernel (last attempt was an allmodconfig)
I've tried to build the 'vm' tool in tools/vm and the build fails -
looks to be fallout from the uapi header work.
[madman@localhost tools]$ make V=1 vm
make -C vm/
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/madman/sources/linux-2.6
I don't see anything obviously wrong here...
Reviewed-By: Daniel Hazelton
On 12/20/2012 02:11 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin
---
tools/testing/selftests/epoll/test_epoll.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/self
On Friday 08 February 2008 14:08:21 David Newall wrote:
> I explained something poorly:
> > Now, Alan has made a big issue over numerous legal opinions he has
> > received, but he's been completely coy in the details.
>
> The point I wanted to make is that a few people have said that lawyers
> say
On Friday 08 February 2008 16:36:37 Alan Cox wrote:
> > In other words "EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL" isn't his idea of "a good legal idea",
> > but people ignoring this and doing things that circumvent this will,
> > eventually, have problems with the people who hold the copyright on the
> > code. (In additi
On Saturday 09 February 2008 23:50:17 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > > It makes no difference if you
> > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> >
> > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > used in the intended, ordinary way. You do not need to agree to, nor c
On Sunday 10 February 2008 00:43:49 Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > > > > It makes no difference if you
> > > > > distribute the GPL library with it or not.
> > > >
> > > > If you do not distribute the GPL library, the library is simply being
> > > > used in the intended, ordinary way. Yo
On Sunday 10 February 2008 06:20:45 Alan Cox wrote:
> > Why? Because the pre-processor is what is including any GPL'd code in my
> > application and expanding any macros. That is a purely mechanical process
> > and
>
> And its not pirating Windows because Norton Ghost put Microsoft copyright
> mate
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 06:10:34 Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Yes, exactly two of them. One is non-trivial to get rid of - it's
> > used for encoding of filename before we write it,
>
> Why can't we do just
>
>
>
> UDF: Optimize stack usage
>
> Signed-off-by:
On 07/06/2012 11:32 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko
>> Cc: Kyungmin Park
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/ccg/ccg.c |8 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 17:15:42 John W. Linville wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:54:11PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > If I put some heavy load on the iwl3945, then the network connection
> > gets stuck after a some time. To fix it I have to reload the module.
>
> Can you quantify this a
On Saturday 12 January 2008 04:41:21 Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Thu, 10 Jan 2008 23:02:53 +0100,
> >
> > Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> Hm... Just to be sure, try the patch below. It's a clean up patch
> >>> that I'd like to apply later.
> >>
> >> Sorry
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 05:08:45 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:03:22 -0500,
>
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 14 January 2008 06:04:20 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Could this have anything to do with the following mess
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 19:46:06 Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:25:22PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 04:22:45PM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:
> >> >> Hello!
> >>
On Sunday 22 July 2007 18:03:06 Bartek wrote:
> 2007/7/22, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > 00:1f.1 0101: 8086:27df (rev 02)
> > >
> > > Ok, this controller is supported.
> > > Did you forgot about CONFIG_PATA_MPIIX=y?
> >
> > MPIIX is for early Intel laptop (pentium era).
> >
> > If the chip
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> > be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> > under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> > problem for the linux
(by the way, text in caps surrounded by *'s is meant to indicate vocal stress,
not volume)
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:18 David Schwartz wrote:
> > So I appear to have a
> > right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> > receives no right to use it except under th
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > > these licenses
>
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork
> > - his code
> > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license
> > and was only
> > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work t
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The fact
> > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
> > copyright
> > license has the right to revoke said grant of lic
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of
> > "The license applies to the copyright holder"
>
> Of course not.
I'll
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> failing to act in another. We need not act in ev
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> The fact
> >>> remains that the pe
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 the license for a
> > specifi
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between ac
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote:
> Chris Friesen writes:
> > Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>US Copyright
On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 01:47:49 -0700 Andrew Morton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > More sophisticated testing is needed - there's something in
> > > ext3-tools which will mmap, page i
On Friday 27 July 2007 14:16:32 Rene Herman wrote:
> On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Updatedb or another process that uses the FS heavily runs on a users
> > 256MB P3-800 (when it is idle) and the VFS caches grow, causing memory
> > pressure that causes oth
On Friday 27 July 2007 18:08:44 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:45 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Friday 27 July 2007 06:25:18 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 03:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > So hrm. Are we sur
On Friday 27 July 2007 19:29:19 Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Any faults in that reasoning?
>
> GNU sort uses a merge sort with temporary files on disk. Not sure
> how much it keeps in memory during that, but it's probably less
> than 150MB. At some point the dirty limit should kick in and write back the
>
On Saturday 28 July 2007 03:48:13 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 18:51 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Now, once more, I'm going to ask: What is so terribly wrong with swap
> > prefetch? Why does it seem that everyone against it says "Its treating a
>
On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> > On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >> > On 07/27/2007 07:45 PM, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >>
On Saturday 28 July 2007 17:06:50 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Saturday 28 July 2007 04:55:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Rene Herman wrote:
> >>> On 07/27/2007 09:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
On Sunday 29 July 2007 16:00:22 Ray Lee wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If the problem is reading stuff back in from swap at the *same time*
> > that the application is reading stuff from some user file system, and if
> > that user file system is on the same drive a
On Monday 30 July 2007 14:35:13 Bernhard Kaindl wrote:
> Ok, lets kill the message. As Alois Nešpor also saw, that's fixed up by
> Yenta, so PCI does not have to warn about it. PCI could still warn about it
> if is_cardbus is 0 in that instance of pci_scan_bridge(), but so far I have
> not seen a
On Monday 22 October 2007 17:52:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > This device is NOT a Ralink USB wifi adapter!
> > > > >
> > > > > Get the windows driver in this link and see for yourself.
> > > > > http://www.conitech.it/conitech/ita/ri
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > Yes, I'm quite sure. There's MODULE_LICENCE("GPL"), IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't say much, some manufacturers add that line to their
> > > > driver just to pr
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 10:05:12 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 00:00 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > &
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 17:27:07 Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 15:41 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 October 2007 14:54:54 Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 13:07 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 23 Octo
On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > That accurately describes the FCC wireless rules.
> >>
> >> AFAIK the FCC mandates not permitting the user to tinker. It doesn't
> >> mandate the vendor to retain this ability to it
On Monday 18 June 2007 04:49:56 Anders Larsen wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:56 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > I don't know any law that requires tivoization.
>
> Not exactly laws, but pretty close:
>
> Credit-card payment terminals are subject to strict security
> certification, where it ha
On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007 19:11:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Let me start with an example: I bought a wireless router some time
> >> ago, an
On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 15:09:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Yes. Anyone feels like enforcing the GPLv2 in Brazil?
> >
> > I don't know
On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With the GPLv2, you need to give your software modifications back, but
> > the
> BZZT!
> > GPLv2 never *ever* makes any technical limit
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:06:57 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 19:31:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 18, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >&g
On Monday 18 June 2007 22:57:20 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2007 17:31:47 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> And if you look at GPLv3dd1 or dd2 IIRC, that's how it started. For
> >> s
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The GPLv2 is the one that allows more developers.
> >
> > The GPLv2 is the one that is acceptable to more people.
>
> Based on my understanding that the anti-tivoization provisio
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:10:02 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I haven't looked at it, in depth, today but one of the problems I
> > saw was the apparent loopholes in the text. No specifics, but I
> > rememb
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 01:51:19 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > The GP
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 02:44:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> GPLv3 forbids tivoization, therefore developer has requirement for
> >> tivoizatio
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 13:06:17 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2007 04:04:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On Tue
On Tuesday 19 June 2007 19:49:24 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> remember, not all tivo models are locked down,
> >
> > Only the earliest that you can't find for sale any more, right?
> >
> >> as a result of w
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 07:34:09 Simon Arlott wrote:
> On Tue, June 12, 2007 18:32, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Jun 12 2007 10:04, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * following code does not allow Non Root User to cross its
> >> > process + * limit. it alerts admin
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because
> >> > Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowled
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:35:41 Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Wed, 13 June 2007 14:33:07 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and
> > you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.
>
> One could even add that "tit-for-tat" appears
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > The fact is, Tivo didn't take those rights away from you, yet the FSF
> > says that what Tivo did was "against the spirit". That's *bullshit*.
>
> Oh, good, let's take this one.
>
> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
>
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:14:47 Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday June 13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1: Sheeple (n): People that act like sheep - ie: they cannot think or
> > form opinions for themselves and always look to someone else for their
> > thoughts and parrot the opinions of some "tr
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:15:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > > On Jun 13, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:55:52 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Bongani Hlope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> if you distribute copies of such a program, [...]
> >> you must give the recipients all the rights that you have
>
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:04:42 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Now stop parroting the FSF's worn and tired tripe.
>
> Are you playing Linus' sheeple and parroting his lines just to make a
> point,
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:16:19 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Only courts of law can do that.
> >
> > Wrong! Anyone with half a brain can make the distinction. What TiVO did
> > is
>
> Maybe half a brain can, but anyone with a whole brain can assure you its
> a bit more complex and you are wrong..
>
> >
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 20:44:19 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 07:46:15PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On W
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 21:24:01 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:01:28PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On W
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:04:04 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Still doesn't explain why you have argued that the GPLv3 doesn't
> > attempt to cover hardware and then provide proof that it does.
>
> I
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:38:05 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. They don't. What TiVO prevents is using that modified version on
&
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:56:40 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 10:43:14PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 22:08:27 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 09:40:13PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > > On W
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've never had a reason to want to change the way any device like a TiVO
> > works. So I can't comment on this.
>
> Have you never wanted
On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:39:13 Michael Gerdau wrote:
> > In Germany, not America. I should have qualified my statement to make it
> > clear I mean "In America". Sorry about the confusion.
>
> You shouldn't say "America" when you mean the "US".
Sorry, I slipped. I'm still trying to rid myself of
On Thursday 14 June 2007 02:36:12 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> "For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
> >> for all modules it contains, plus any associated interf
On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 01:51:13 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > On
On Thursday 14 June 2007 04:37:55 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 23:38 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Jun 13, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 13 June 2007 19:49:23 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > >
> > &g
On Thursday 14 June 2007 11:20:34 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 12:00:17AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 04:56:40 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> > > Reality check:
> > >
> > > Harald convinced companies that they have to provide the private keys
> > > required t
On Thursday 14 June 2007 12:06:31 Kevin Fox wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 20:42 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>
>
> > > Do you deny that TiVo prevents you (or at least a random customer)
> > > from modifying the copy of Linux that they ship in their DVR?
> >
&
On Thursday 14 June 2007 13:26:30 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 03:11:45 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Ah,
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:53:47 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > So now the copy of the GPL v2 isn't good enough for the GPLv1.1 code?
> > Maybe that code said 'or later' in the license and hence someone added
> > it to a GPL v2 project since that sounds pe
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:13:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> But see, I'm not talking about getting permission to hack the
> >> hardware. I'm only talking about getting permission to hack the Free
> >> Softwa
On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > So let's look at that "section 6" that you talk about, and quote the
> > relevant parts, will we:
> >
> > You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
> > exercise of the rights granted herein.
> >
> > and then
On Thursday 14 June 2007 15:46:36 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Is there anything other than TiVOization to justify these statements?
> >
> > Do you need anything else?
>
> No, I'm quite happy
On Thursday 14 June 2007 16:42:44 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Sam Ravnborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 04:46:36PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> > Giving back "in kind" is obvious. I give you source code to do with as
> >> > you see fit. I just expect yo
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:19:51 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With GPLv2 and prior there was a simple guarantee that every
> > "Licensee" had exactly the same rights. With GPLv3 you are forcing
> > y
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:27:27 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And the companies that produce devices that come with Linux and/or
> > other GPL'd software installed and place limits such that only
>
On Thursday 14 June 2007 17:39:32 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> And since the specific implementation involves creating a derived work
> of the GPLed kernel (the signature, or the signed image, or what have
> you) and refraining from providing the corresponding sources to that
> derived work (the key
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:24:55 David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 21:29 -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Agreed. However, AFAICT, TiVO meets the provisions of the GPLv2 - they
> > make the source of the GPL'd part of their system available. (And I'm
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:35:01 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I want to be able to use other peoples improvements. If they release
> > improved versions of the software I started, I want to be able to merge
> > those improvements if I want
On Thursday 14 June 2007 18:45:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> *AND* the GPL has never been
On Thursday 14 June 2007 21:43:07 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:35:29 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > So let's look at that "section 6" that you tal
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:13:13 Michael Poole wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton writes:
> > What rights did they give to "downstream" recipients of the "object code"
> > version? *EXACTLY* those they received from the GPLv2.
>
> Doing the e-mail equivalent of yell
On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the GPLv2 license says no such thing, and you seem to be mighty confused
> > about how software licenses work.
> >
> > the GPL applies to software. It is a software license.
> >
>
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:22:48 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Faulty logic. The hardware doesn't *restrict* you from *MODIFYING*
> > any fscking thing.
>
> Ok, lemme try again:
>
> case 2'
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:39:50 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're making an artificial distinction based on whether the
> > *SOFTWARE* has a certain license or not.
>
> What matters to me is that, wh
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:04:37 Michael Poole wrote:
> 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 desire
On Thursday 14 June 2007 23:54:31 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2007, Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 June 2007 22:21:59 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> Consider egg yolk and egg shells.
> >>
> >> I produce egg yolk. I g
On Friday 15 June 2007 00:14:49 Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2007, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> case 2'': tivo provides source, end user tries to improve it, realizes
> >> the hardware won't let him use the result of his effor
1 - 100 of 203 matches
Mail list logo
