> Unlikely as most of the code I've written belongs to Intel or Red Hat. I
> also have better things to do with life than sue Nvidia and start an all
> out copyright and patent war in Linuxspace.
I forgot to ask, but after your petty G+ trolling, if most of the code
belings to Intel or Red Hat, wh
> From the fact this patch keeps getting resubmitted despite repeated
> objection I deduce they are in fact of the view it does matter and that
> therefore it is a licensing change and they are scared of the
> consequences of ignoring it.
>
No I think they just want to have to write a pointless ha
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:22:04 +1000
Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> >> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> >> > then please take the m
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> > holders
> > Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
> > your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
> > then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
> > holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. Thi
b>>
>> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn't a relicense of anything.
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL isn't a license its nothing like a license. Its a
>> totally pointless thing, it should be
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_USERS_MIGHT_BE_DERIVED_CONSULT_YOUR_LAWYER, but it
>> really should be EXPORT_SYMBOL, and rea
>> Please go and discuss estoppel, wilful infringement and re-licensing with
>> your corporate attorneys. If you want to relicense components of the code
>> then please take the matter up with the corporate attorneys of the rights
>> holders concerned.
>
> Alan please stick with the facts. This isn
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I believe that the developers and maintainers of dma-buf have provided
>> the needed signoff, both in person and in this thread. If there are any
>> objections from that group, I'm happy to discuss any changes necessary to get
>> this merged.
>
> I believe that the developers and maintainers of dma-buf have provided
> the needed signoff, both in person and in this thread. If there are any
> objections from that group, I'm happy to discuss any changes necessary to get
> this merged.
You need the permission of the owners of all the depend
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:57:15PM -0700, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Wed October 10 2012 23:02:06 Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > Robert Morell wrote:
> > >
> > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an i
> > Then they can accept the risk of ignoring EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and
> > calling into it anyway can't they. Your argument makes no rational sense
> > of any kind.
>
> But then why object to the change, your objection makes sense, naking
> the patch makes none, if you believe in your objection.
[l/
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for
>> zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
>> drivers
>> are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:47:15 -0500
Rob Clark escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> wrote:
> > Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
> > Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> >
> >> > my understaning is
> >> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
> >
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
wrote:
> Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
> Hans Verkuil escreveu:
>
>> > my understaning is
>> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
>> > (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also
Hi Hans,
On Thursday 11 October 2012 13:36:45 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share
> > > buffers for zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that
> > > several popular DRM drivers are c
On Thu 11 October 2012 13:36:45 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers
> > > for
> > > zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> > > drivers
> > > are cl
On Thu 11 October 2012 13:34:07 Alan Cox wrote:
> > The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers
> > for
> > zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> > drivers
> > are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symb
> > So, developers implicitly or explicitly copied in this thread that might be
> > considering the usage of dmabuf on proprietary drivers should consider
> > this email as a formal notification of my viewpoint: e. g. that I consider
> > any attempt of using DMABUF or media core/drivers together wi
> The whole purpose of this API is to let DRM and V4L drivers share buffers for
> zero-copy pipelines. Unfortunately it is a fact that several popular DRM
> drivers
> are closed source. So we have a choice between keeping the export symbols GPL
> and forcing those closed-source drivers to make the
> As long as dmabuf uses EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL that is definitely correct. Does your
> statement also hold if dmabuf would use EXPORT_SYMBOL? (Just asking)
Yes. The GPL talks about derivative works (as does copyright law).
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media"
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:20:12 +0200
Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > my understaning is
> > that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
> > (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has
> > copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, inc
Op 11-10-12 09:51, Hans Verkuil schreef:
>>> my understaning is
>>> that the drivers/media/ authors should also ack with this licensing
>>> (possible) change. I am one of the main contributors there. Alan also has
>>> copyrights there, and at other parts of the Linux Kernel, including the
>>> dri
On Thu 11 October 2012 09:20:12 Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On Thu October 11 2012 03:11:19 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
> > Dave Airlie escreveu:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > >
On Thu October 11 2012 03:11:19 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
> Dave Airlie escreveu:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > > Robert Morell wrote:
> > >
> > >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be u
On Wed October 10 2012 23:02:06 Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > Robert Morell wrote:
> >
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
>> > Robert Morell wrote:
>> >
>> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> >> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> >> explicitly inte
Em Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:22:34 +1000
Dave Airlie escreveu:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> > Robert Morell wrote:
> >
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> >> issue, and not really an interface".
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> Robert Morell wrote:
>
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> explicitly intended as an interface
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
> Robert Morell wrote:
>
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
>> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
>> explicitly intended as an interface
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell wrote:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMBOL
Em Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:56:32 -0700
Robert Morell escreveu:
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
> issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
> explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
> should use EXPORT_SYMB
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is intended to be used for "an internal implementation
issue, and not really an interface". The dma-buf infrastructure is
explicitly intended as an interface between modules/drivers, so it
should use EXPORT_SYMBOL instead.
Signed-off-by: Robert Morell
---
This patch is based on
32 matches
Mail list logo
