blending, anti-aliased fonts and
> so on).
>
> I'd love to hear you enumerate all the shortcomings that you
> believe need to be addressed. Also, please CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At least give the competition an opportunity to win over the
> support of the developers
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
> > > pr
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html
> >
nels are messed beyond recognition in this anyway, but they are
freezed so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Mmm,
our name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On M
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> > that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship s
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
> >the
> >firmware is in a separate ace
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
> is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
> file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
&
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> >
should not
matter, and only the original checkin you did is the one we need to account
for.
I understand this is bothersome to everyone, but the code base will be a
cleaner one once we solve this issue, don't you think ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
copyright
> statements/exemptions/something to the binary blobs where they are now.
Yes, indeed, i am searching for a short-time clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.
That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs
I don't believe there is already
support for a second ramdisk in todays kernel.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
u have to consider the case of some of those companies ending in
the arms of a legally predative company and pulling another SCO at us.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
it would be enough.
Or even adding some comment in the toplevel COPYING file saying that firmware
blobs come under their own licence or something such, and then listing all the
firmware blobs and their licencing condition in a separate toplevel file would
be enough.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
d,
0xd, 0x3c1d0001, 0x37bde000, 0x3a0f021,
0x3c11, 0x2610, 0xc004010, 0x0,
...
It is specially ironic to see the GPL advertizement and the firmware binary
words together :)
Will contact their driver support team, and see what it gives.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> >
irmware blobs are found are totally
irelevant, since we reached consensus on debian-legal in marsh that they
constitute mere agregation, where either the file or the elf binary are just
the distribution media.
And those binary blobs currently come under the GPL or are not licenced at
all,
mware and code parts.
Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody
really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those
firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly
identified and properly licenced, which they are not
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> > > works that are only aggregated can be easily dis
eryone else, we
are also doing the work needed to solve the issue with upstream, see :
http://wiki.debian.net/?KernelFirmwareLicensing
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTE
ldn'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 be disabled.
>
> I am fairly certain in that case the firmware came from the bcm5701
> broadcom driver for the tg3 which I think
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
&
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 mo
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
> > > modific
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
t if you consider firmware as being a derivative
work, you should consider it a derivative work also when it is flashed on the
prom of a pci card or what not, is decisive enough to make those firmware
blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsu
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".
So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take it
n of the firmware and hence the
> source code under the GPL."
I strongly disagree. This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that
whatever binary is the prefered form of modification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
ot apply.
>
> In particular, the end of GPL #2 does not provide a blanket exception
> for all forms of aggregation; it specifically speaks about aggregation
> "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the sa
copies of the windows
installation CD, or for that matter to duplicate music CDs ?
I would be rather interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [
data in a auto-uncompressing executable, or the firmware from
the firmware flasher in a all-in-one firmware upgrade binary.
> At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if
> the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license.
Indeed, the sole probl
Debian stance is that the kernel proper
> and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage (
> ie. system memory).
The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under
tion is simply to move the affected drivers to non-free, and
provide mechanisms for the user to load these installer modules with the free
installer, or have a couple of builds of a non-free installer which include
these non-free modules.
Saying that we are dogmatic, without even caring to understa
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
modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
> automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties
> who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will
> not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in
> full co
icencing issues, then we are better of not distributing its code, which is
> >what debian will do.
>
> There no such a risk. A already placed a copyright notice on his work.
> Is it the wrong one? Who cares? I'd even say that once he released it
> under GPL, he can't take it back.
But the GPL states that we must be able to distribute the sources, clearly
defines what said sources are, and states what happens if you can't fullfill
a clause of the GPL -> no right to distribute at all.
> >
> >I am not sure. If i where to get a copy of windows, and manage to install
> >it
> >without clicking on the "i agree" button, does that make it a legal copy of
> >windows to use ?
>
> Come on, please, do not mix things up. I've said GPL'ed software. Last time
> I checked, Windows was not GPL'ed (yet). :-)
What has the GPL to do with it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
and add SA_SHIRQ in
> there as the interrupt is shared if I understand things correctly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well, it originated by me/you/dale, but i think it is trivial
;recall all those thousands of CD and DVD isos containing the code it
> >>>distributed, and being fined for each day it doesn't do so ?
> >>
> >>Sorry, this is nonsense. D is well willing to distribute the source.
> >>In this case, he _is_ distributing what A
lize that any author can publish his work in the form he
> likes. He's not bound to "everyone's expectation". I see no danger in
> that.
I think there may be some limitation of using the GPL as licence in this case
though, as such behavior may limit its value, and the GPL
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 10:39:05PM +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> The first try to send the message below didn't work. Hoping it does
> now ... :)
>
> Regards
> Wolfgang
>
> - Forwarded message from Wolfgang Pfeiifer -
>
> To: Sven Luther <[EMA
>
> Does it work for anyone else on Powerstack II Pro4000 (Utah)?
Can you try :
http://people.debian.org/~luther/d-i/images/daily/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
It works for me, and the kernel (2.6.8) has the irqs patched, but not the scsi
stuff touched, i think.
Friendly,
Sven Lu
daily builder, should be ok for tomorrow. IN the
meanwhile, you can try :
http://people.debian.org/~luther/d-i/images/2005-02-23/powerpc/netboot/vmlinuz-prep.initrd
This is a zImage.prep kernel with builtin initrd, you just put it somewhere
where you can boot it from, usually a tftp server.
ot/vmlinuz-2.6.10-powerpc to your prep partition, or
better yet to a tftp server, and try it out. If the scsi problems are there,
can you fill a bug report against kernel-source-2.6.10 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:24:19AM +0100, Christian Kujau wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Oh, damn, need to fix my daily builder, should be ok for tomorrow. IN the
> > meanwhile, you can try :
> >
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:59:04PM +0100, Christian wrote:
> On Fri, February 25, 2005 7:36, Sven Luther said:
> > So, now, we need to find out what the problems where, i think it is
> > something that went in between 2.6.8 and 2.6.10, and leigh said he had
> > some ideas
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:39:45AM +0100, Christian wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Some backports that i got from the list. The complete list of patches is
> >at :
> >
> >
> > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.8-2.6.8/deb
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:21:05PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 12:09 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> please take this discussion elsewhere. Also please never cc three such
Ok, can you please point to me where is the place it should be taken off ? I
suppose you
hese murky legalese issues nobody is really
fond of,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:26:58AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > Current linux kernel source hold undistributable non-free firmware blobs,
> > and
> > to consider them as mere agregation, a clear licence s
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
> > audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
> >
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
> > audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
> >
ifferences in other areas. At this
> point, I think the differences are bigger than the common code.
>
> What would be interesting would be to proceed incrementally, having a
> directory somewhere to put the "common" ppc/ppc64 code, and slowly
> moving things there.
55 matches
Mail list logo
