Greg KH wrote:
> It comes down to the simple fact, if you wish to use Linux, abide by the
> license it comes under. To do otherwise is both disenginous and
> illegal[1].
I think you're being dishonest. This isn't really about Linux and it
being licensed under GPL, is it? Not if you're being 100
Greg KH wrote:
> It comes down to the simple fact, if you wish to use Linux, abide by the
> license it comes under. To do otherwise is both disenginous and
> illegal[1].
By the way, I'm almost certain that the COPYING file is the first, last
and only document specifying licence conditions, and not
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Feb 3, 2008 5:12 PM, David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> By the way, I'm almost certain that the COPYING file is the first, last
>> and only document specifying licence conditions, and nothing in that
&g
Bernd Petrovitsch writes:
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 01:37 +1030, David Newall wrote:
[...]
disadvantage Linux with respect to many classes of devices, for example
GSM transceivers when used in those parts of the world^ where regulatory
requirements prohibit modification of power or frequency
Pekka Enberg writes:
I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
infringement if the copyright holder thinks what you have is derived
wo
Marcel Holtmann writes:
if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
the GPL.
Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it
would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be
written and distributed as a module under
Greg KH writes:
No, it really is not a gray area at all, especially when you are writing
a new driver for Linux. Go talk to a lawyer if you want the details.
If we're still talking about whether a kernel module is required to be
released under GPL, then yes, this is not a gray area. This is
Diego Zuccato writes:
David Newall ha scritto:
This does, of course,
disadvantage Linux with respect to many classes of devices, for example
GSM transceivers when used in those parts of the world^ where regulatory
requirements prohibit modification of power or frequency settings, which
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
>>> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
>>> license or don't use this symbol at all.
>>>
Not sure who wrote the above, but it contains a glaring legal error
Alan Cox wrote:
>> If we're still talking about whether a kernel module is required to be
>> released under GPL, then yes, this is not a gray area. This is something
>> that authors of original works can decide for themselves. They have no
>>
^^^
>
> Onl
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:44:36AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> A kernel module is akin to a process. It uses services of the kernel
>> without being part of the kernel.
>>
>
> No Linux does not work like this at all.
> ...
> Als
Chris Friesen wrote:
> if I were to write a new GPL shim and then a new closed-source module
> that uses the shim to access kernel symbols, it is entirely possible
> that a court could rule that my closed-source module is a derivative
> work of the linux kernel because it was written specifically t
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:14:48PM +0100, Christer Weinigel wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:34:18 -0800
>> Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In the end, it's up to the copyright holders to enforce the license.
>>> And as I have stated in the past, a number of t
Christer Weinigel wrote:
> I also think that my customers, that decided to keep their kernel
> modules binary only, made a big mistake and have told them so. But I
> still think it's better for the Linux community to be a bit soft on
> such companies for a while. It's better to let them get away
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> I disagree here. They either play by the roles or they really do pay
> Microsoft or go with BSD. I really couldn't care less.
Then you should keep away from the kernel. The last thing that Linux
needs is someone who doesn't care if Linux succeeds or fails. "I don't
care"
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> If somebody prefers an other OS for license reasons only, let them. You
> cannot have open source software without open source license. If a
> company chooses Linux, they do it for technical reasons, and because
> they're able to modify the sources to suit their needs. Wha
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:23PM -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> David Newall wrote:
>>
>>> That being said, a module can be written such that it only dynamically
>>> links with the kernel. Ndiswrapper is an example of ho
Alan Cox wrote:
>> "Of course", because in many parts of the world, a device who's manufacturer
>> fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being used outside
>> regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code not only is a failure
>> to take those reasonable steps, but is quite th
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
>>> the GPL.
>>>
>> Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it
>> would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be
>> written and distri
Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:09:07PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> Marcel Holtmann writes:
>>
>>> if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
>>> the GPL.
>>>
>> Completely wrong. How
Pekka Enberg wrote:
> I have simply stated that (1) the problem boils down to what is
> derived work and what is no and (2) the developers use the
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as a hint of what they think to be derived work (not
> necessarily tested in court). The _logical conclusion_ of these two
> simple
Diego Zuccato wrote:
> David Newall ha scritto:
>
>> "Of course", because in many parts of the world, a device who's
>> manufacturer fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being
>> used outside regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code
Chris Friesen wrote:
> Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>
>> If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
>> with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
>> license or don't use this symbol at all.
>>
>> If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
>>> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
>>> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
>>> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
>>> infringement if the copyright holder
Alan Cox wrote:
>> In Australia, devices require approval from a regulatory body. Such
>> approval is withheld if appropriate safeguards are not applied.
>>
>
> We were talking about the USA.
We most certainly were not. We are talking about Linux, and everybody
wants it be used globally.
>
Alan Cox wrote:
>> The contract (GPL) doesn't prevent me from using GPL work, in fact it
>> encourages me. Neither can it impose conditions upon original work
>> authored by a third party.
>>
>
> First mistake: The GPL is not a contract it is a license.
Mea culpa. It is indeed a licence, whi
Alan Cox wrote:
>> Again, I missed who wrote the above. I'm reminded of Apple computer,
>> who explaining some engineering decisions in the Apple ][ pointed out
>> that an additional 10c in components adds $10 to the retail price (or
>> something rather like that.) Cheap, cheap, cheap helps mark
Alan Cox wrote:
>> previous statements which seemed to say, "you've spoken to numerous
>>
>
> Please don't use "seemed to say" and then quote words I've never said.
> That's misleading, rude and also awful language style.
No, it's called, "paraphrasing," and it's quite normal in a
conversatio
Alan Cox wrote:
>> No, I'm right. The word "proof" is appropriate in context. (I write in
>> plain English, not Legalese.) I certainly didn't intend "proof" to mean
>> "mathematically certain." Anybody who pretends that proof in court
>> means that must be ignorant or trying to deceive.
>>
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:01:24 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> It is not legally meaningless if copyright holders publicly state
>>> how they interpret the license and what they consider a license
>>> v
Alan Cox wrote:
>> That's what you claim it says, but has any court, anywhere, agreed with
>> you? You claim the authority of others (i.e. numerous lawyers), but I
>> don't believe you have that authority. You're just starting hearsay.
>> You've never said what lawyers and you've never told us w
Alan Cox wrote:
>> It's nonsense, it's a reasonable reading of the GPL. What I am doing is
>> telling you what the GPL says, not what you wish it said.
>>
>
> In which case for each statement please give the case at appeal or higher
> level which is the precedent for the interpretation.
>
Diego Zuccato wrote:
> David Newall ha scritto:
>
>> That's naive, since requirements differ in different jurisdictions, as
>> I'm sure you are perfectly aware.
> Naive? Who thinks a limit can be enforced by sw is naive!
Of course. Naturally it's near imposs
Alan Cox wrote:
>> No. Holders of Linux copyrights would have to prove that the
>> proprietary code is derived from the kernel. They have the burden of
>> proof, and defence needs merely show that their arguments are wrong.
>>
>
> Wrong again. In civil law in the USA and most of europe the t
Alan Cox wrote:
>>> IANAL, but when looking at the "But when you distribute the same
>>> sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
>>> distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License" of the
>>> GPLv2 I would still consult a lawyer before e.g. selling a
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> Am Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:49:42 +1030
> schrieb David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Nobody is saying "I don't like your licence." The issue is a
>> technical restriction in Linux that attempts to restrict non-GPL
>> so
Alan Cox wrote:
>> I heard this all before and I don't buy it anymore. At some point the
>> companies in Asia will understand that the whole picture looks different
>> and that not always cheap, cheap, cheap is best for their margins.
Again, I missed who wrote the above. I'm reminded of Apple com
Hans-Jürgen Koch wrote:
> The license says that derivative work has to be GPL. Naturally, every
> sensible and practically usable license has gray areas. We know that
> and we live with that. But if there's room for interpretation, it's
> perfectly OK and helpful, if the copyright holder states wha
Alan Cox wrote:
>> It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
>> and that." I'm not proposing that you breach their copyright in their
>>
>
> It would be highly improper given these were business discussions
> involving companies using Linux.
Then you should never
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>
> I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
> it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
> consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
> infringement if the copyrigh
Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:25:33 +1030
> David Newall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>>>> It would not be improper to say that "such and such a lawyer said this
>>>> and that.&q
My, I am full of post scripts today. This one is a peace token for Alan.
David Newall wrote:
> there are more reliable and transparent sources [than Alan.] Don't take his
> word on it. Take the words of real experts in the law, because instead
> of a mere four word conclusion
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 that kernel modules are derivative, but I only remember Alan saying
Greg KH wrote:
> A "driver" is not an "application" as you tried to reference in your
> prior quotes.
I think your treating what the learned Professors said to literally.
> It is a tiny portion of the whole kernel,
The Copyright Act draws no such a distinction.
> and as such,
> does fall under
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Anyway you are still under the impression that a Linux kernel module can
> be original work in the end. We keep telling you that could be a wrong
> assumption which is based on the view of many of the kernel developers
> and of most of the lawyers that looked at this specif
Consider a USB-attached serial port that is set to do RTS/CTS (or
DSR/DTR) handshaking: What stops the kernel sending more data to it when
the remote end lowers CTS (or DTR)?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More ma
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 01:15:37AM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> Consider a USB-attached serial port that is set to do RTS/CTS (or
>> DSR/DTR) handshaking: What stops the kernel sending more data to it when
>> the remote end lowers CTS (or DTR)?
&
Alan Cox wrote:
>> To make it clear: Even aside from the buffer in 2.6's pl2303.c, there's
>> a race: An in-flight write URB can fill all hardware buffers, making
>> unsafe what previously appeared to be a safe write. I think it's
>> essential to delay submission of the URB on a stop-transmit cond
Alan Cox wrote:
>> byte of a packet is being thrown away about .1% of the time for the pl2303,
>> but I'm not sure if the FTDI driver still suffers from a similar rash. I
>>
>
> A 20 byte low speed message is too small for flow control to account for
> it.
I agree. I've observed the first
Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:55:44PM +1030, David Newall wrote:
>
>> The current 2.6 driver maintains it's own buffer. I think that's a bad
>> thing: usbserial already buffers writes, and the extra buffer copy seems
>> unnecessary, however
Alan,
Alan Cox wrote:
>> That's a very good point. Even so: on the 2.4 driver, write_room isn't
>> implemented (refer to a previous message by Alan); and in 2.6, a 1k
>> buffer is built into the driver, with nothing to prevent it being sent
>> when the hardware buffer fills.
>>
[...]
> Care
Alan Cox wrote:
>> developing is entirely wrong. Oh well. Mind you, providing a
>> write_room function is NOT a real solution; it merely reduces the
>> condition to a usually-winnable race. (Ironically, when I back-ported
>> the 2.6 driver, I excluded its new write_room function. Mistake.)
>>
Kevin Lloyd wrote:
> My thought is that
> implementing this in a userspace daemon/program requires cross-process
> communication which I feel is a bit more complex (or is there a standard
> way for a userspace program to output to a virtual serial port to obtain
> the same net effect).
Perhaps pty
53 matches
Mail list logo
