Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-21 Thread Joerg Schilling
Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What, are you kidding me? ;) > > http://lwn.net/Articles/173209/ > > "Stable: Interfaces classified as stable will not break 'for at least > two years', and probably quite a bit longer. The Linux system call > interface is classified in this way" This is

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-19 Thread Erast Benson
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 12:16 +1200, Glynn Foster wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > > ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and > > > target OpenSolaris! > > > > Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the "conversion"?

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-19 Thread Glynn Foster
Hi, On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 14:40 -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > > ALl the more reason for those driver developers to abandon Linux and > > target OpenSolaris! > > Indeed! The question is what we can do to speed up the "conversion"? > > I feel like not all of Linux kernel folks even understand the b

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-17 Thread Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > > As a side note: for Linux kernel this code "separation" will *never* > > work since Linux and its development team doesn't care about such a > > drivers. Maintaining separated drivers for Linux kernel is extremel

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-17 Thread Joerg Schilling
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > The real problem that I see is that people may call OpenSolaris a GPL > > violating project even though there is no reason that would stand a > > case on court. > > Can we have > [EMAIL PROTECTED] please? Feel free to creat

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Erast Benson
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 13:29 -0800, Rich Teer wrote: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > > > As a side note: for Linux kernel this code "separation" will *never* > > work since Linux and its development team doesn't care about such a > > drivers. Maintaining separated drivers for Linux ker

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Rich Teer
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Erast Benson wrote: > As a side note: for Linux kernel this code "separation" will *never* > work since Linux and its development team doesn't care about such a > drivers. Maintaining separated drivers for Linux kernel is extremely > painful work and requires a lot of workers

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Erast Benson
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 16:22 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > > GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't > > > be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However t

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Darren J Moffat
Joerg Schilling wrote: The real problem that I see is that people may call OpenSolaris a GPL violating project even though there is no reason that would stand a case on court. Can we have [EMAIL PROTECTED] please? BTW the "viral" part of the GPL is in the CDDL as well, the main difference

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Rich Teer
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that one can't GPL magic numbers or > > algorithms, so provided that you don't use any of the GPLed code, I > > think you should be OK. > > I am not sure about the US Copyrigh

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Artem Kachitchkine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code. > > Not all code is "incoming", some is simply "out there". E.g. one question > that > comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the > author's web pag

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't > > be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't > > much change of that becoming part of the official Ope

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't > be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't > much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris source > tree unless someone discovers how to combine

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that one can't GPL magic numbers or > algorithms, so provided that you don't use any of the GPLed code, I > think you should be OK. I am not sure about the US Copyright system. In Europe, an algorithm would most likely be too

Re: Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PM> Eric Enright wrote: > >> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' > >> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I > >> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to > >> o

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-16 Thread Joerg Schilling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Eric Enright wrote: > >> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' > >> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I > >> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to > >> only use the magic nu

Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-10 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Keith, Thursday, March 9, 2006, 7:21:39 PM, you wrote: KMW> On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Artem Kachitchkine wrote: >> >I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in >> >a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult >> >your lawyer)

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Artem Kachitchkine
What I *think* you're trying to say is that someone who has a GPL'd driver in his hands could in theory port it to Open Solaris and then publish the result on his own (not back through Sun). And another person who wanted it could download and use it. And that all of this forms another distribu

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread James Carlson
Artem Kachitchkine writes: > > > I don't think that's an Open Solaris question at all. You can run any > > software you want, so long as you follow the terms of the license > > granted to you for it. > > Or to paraphrase: go read GPL, silly; if you don't understand what it says, > don't write c

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Artem Kachitchkine
I don't think that's an Open Solaris question at all. You can run any software you want, so long as you follow the terms of the license granted to you for it. Or to paraphrase: go read GPL, silly; if you don't understand what it says, don't write code for Solaris. It seems like a reasonable

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Eric Enright
On 3/9/06, Bill Rushmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > > > Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real > > lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we > > want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread James Carlson
Artem Kachitchkine writes: > > > case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code. > > Not all code is "incoming", some is simply "out there". E.g. one question > that > comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the > author's web page as binary+sour

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Artem Kachitchkine
case-by-case open source legal review process for incoming code. Not all code is "incoming", some is simply "out there". E.g. one question that comes up over and over again is: for a 100% GPL driver, available from the author's web page as binary+source, is it legal to download such a driver

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Erast Benson
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 16:49 +, Darren J Moffat wrote: > GPL as a standalone driver written to the Solaris DDI shouldn't > be a problem as long as it stays under the GPL. However there isn't > much change of that becoming part of the official OpenSolaris source > tree unless someone discovers h

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Keith M Wesolowski
On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 10:01:31AM -0800, Artem Kachitchkine wrote: > >I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in > >a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult > >your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...? > > I think it's t

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Artem Kachitchkine
I guess that Sun should address this - it should be clearly stated in a FAQ (for developers) what to do in such cases (not just - consult your lawyer). Is it permitted or not? What about GPL, BSD, ...? I think it's totally reasonable to put out some guidelines about issues related to GPL driv

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread James Carlson
I really don't think this thread is at all useful or helpful, but I can't seem to resist. :-< Bill Rushmore writes: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > > > Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real > > lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time w

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Darren J Moffat
Bill Rushmore wrote: On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote: Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product. That is completely unrealistic for the typ

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Bill Rushmore
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote: > > Basically I'm saying it isn't that easy you must consult a real > lawyer. We inside Sun have to consult a lawyer every time we > want to add any free/open source software into a Sun product. That is completely unrealistic for the typical open source

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Darren J Moffat
Rich Teer wrote: On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote: I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to only use the magic numbers and

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Rich Teer
On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Eric Enright wrote: > I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' > usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I > know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to > only use the magic numbers and general chip

Re[2]: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Patrick, Thursday, March 9, 2006, 9:43:35 AM, you wrote: PM> Eric Enright wrote: >> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' >> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I >> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Casper . Dik
>Eric Enright wrote: >> I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' >> usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I >> know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to >> only use the magic numbers and general chip programming lo

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Eric Enright
On 3/9/06, Patrick Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Enright wrote: > > I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' > > usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I > > know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to > >

Re: [osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Patrick Mauritz
Eric Enright wrote: I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic rather t

[osol-discuss] Driver Porting Question

2006-03-09 Thread Eric Enright
Hello list, I'm currently looking at porting a certain Linux driver to Solaris' usbser/GSD framework, and am concerned about GPL/CDDL conflicts. I know that a typical port would not be allowed, however my intent is to only use the magic numbers and general chip programming logic rather than reuse