FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-20-2008, 01:50 AM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* jeff <moe@blagblagblag.org> [20080619 23:00]:
[snip]

Well, Red Hat added it to the Linux kernel before the "Derived from
Proprietary Sources" line was added. How do you know Red Hat doesn't have
or never had the source to it? I don't think they have it, but I've never
seen them say they didn't.


Can you provide the commit ID showing that it was Red Hat that
committed it to the upstream Linux kernel source tree? I'm actually
curious to have a look at that commit.


Somewhere else in this thread, jeff wrote:
> The "GPLing" of the driver (MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")) and the inclusion of
> a chunk of non-free code occurred in commit [1]
> 2d8a9d3fd19147c808aa39ddc69a743d1c90f199.
>
> The commit shows David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) and Jeff Garzik
> (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com) as authors.
>
> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git

-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-20-2008, 03:32 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* jeff <moe@blagblagblag.org> [20080619 23:00]:
[snip]

Well, Red Hat added it to the Linux kernel before the "Derived from
Proprietary Sources" line was added. How do you know Red Hat doesn't
have or never had the source to it? I don't think they have it, but
I've never seen them say they didn't.


Can you provide the commit ID showing that it was Red Hat that
committed it to the upstream Linux kernel source tree? I'm actually
curious to have a look at that commit.


Somewhere else in this thread, jeff wrote:
> The "GPLing" of the driver (MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")) and the inclusion of
> a chunk of non-free code occurred in commit [1]
> 2d8a9d3fd19147c808aa39ddc69a743d1c90f199.
>
> The commit shows David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) and Jeff Garzik
> (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com) as authors.
>
> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git

-Jeff



Per the debian discussion on this topic at
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing this was fixed in this
commit:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=49cabf49abd7676d026a61baabf 5aae9337a82be;hp=9beb1d587f690d5b2f9087f8f10c0ff9f 6b66886
(i.e. the GPL indication removed).

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-20-2008, 06:59 AM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Alexandre Oliva wrote:



or add my own changes to it.


No, in order to modify a work you need permission from the copyright
holder and, in some jurisdictions, also from the author (in case the
author is allowed by law to assign the copyright to other parties
while retaining moral rights, one of which is to object to
modifications; this may sound alien to US-centered folks, but it's in
the Berne convention and implemented in various legislations around
the world)


It turns out, "this depends...". You specifically have the right, in the
US, at least, to make changes that are "an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program". Which turns out to include adding
improvements you need.


http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp

And the court noted that no damage was done to the copyright holder by
someone else modifying their own copy of a work.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-20-2008, 02:23 PM
jeff
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

Les Mikesell wrote:

jeff wrote:

Anders Karlsson wrote:

* jeff <moe@blagblagblag.org> [20080619 23:00]:
[snip]

Well, Red Hat added it to the Linux kernel before the "Derived from
Proprietary Sources" line was added. How do you know Red Hat doesn't
have or never had the source to it? I don't think they have it, but
I've never seen them say they didn't.


Can you provide the commit ID showing that it was Red Hat that
committed it to the upstream Linux kernel source tree? I'm actually
curious to have a look at that commit.


Somewhere else in this thread, jeff wrote:
> The "GPLing" of the driver (MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")) and the
inclusion of

> a chunk of non-free code occurred in commit [1]
> 2d8a9d3fd19147c808aa39ddc69a743d1c90f199.
>
> The commit shows David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) and Jeff Garzik
> (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com) as authors.
>
> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git

-Jeff



Per the debian discussion on this topic at
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing this was fixed in this
commit:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=49cabf49abd7676d026a61baabf 5aae9337a82be;hp=9beb1d587f690d5b2f9087f8f10c0ff9f 6b66886


(i.e. the GPL indication removed).


But that is simply wrong. Did you go to your own URL? It doesn't remove *a
single line*. It just added (in 2005):


+ * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,
+ * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation.
+ *
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
+ * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright
+ * notice is accompanying it.


-Jeff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-20-2008, 02:59 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

jeff wrote:


Well, Red Hat added it to the Linux kernel before the "Derived from
Proprietary Sources" line was added. How do you know Red Hat
doesn't have or never had the source to it? I don't think they have
it, but I've never seen them say they didn't.


Can you provide the commit ID showing that it was Red Hat that
committed it to the upstream Linux kernel source tree? I'm actually
curious to have a look at that commit.


Somewhere else in this thread, jeff wrote:
> The "GPLing" of the driver (MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")) and the
inclusion of

> a chunk of non-free code occurred in commit [1]
> 2d8a9d3fd19147c808aa39ddc69a743d1c90f199.
>
> The commit shows David S. Miller (davem@redhat.com) and Jeff Garzik
> (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com) as authors.
>
> [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git

-Jeff



Per the debian discussion on this topic at
http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing this was fixed in this
commit:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=49cabf49abd7676d026a61baabf 5aae9337a82be;hp=9beb1d587f690d5b2f9087f8f10c0ff9f 6b66886


(i.e. the GPL indication removed).


But that is simply wrong. Did you go to your own URL? It doesn't remove
*a single line*. It just added (in 2005):


+ * Derived from proprietary unpublished source code,
+ * Copyright (C) 2000-2003 Broadcom Corporation.
+ *
+ * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
+ * data in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright
+ * notice is accompanying it.



I guess I didn't look that closely. Maybe the GPL line was removed
earlier and this put in (back?) the permission to distribute. I just
pasted the link from the debian discussion where they quoted the earlier
one that said it was GPL and then said this commit solved their problem
with it. See the tg3 section of the 1st link I posted.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-22-2008, 05:44 PM
Alexandre Oliva
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Jun 20, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

> You specifically have the right, in the US, at least, to make
> changes that are "an essential step in the utilization of the
> computer program".

Indeed, there are such things as fair use and exceptions to
copyright. We've already covered this.

> Which turns out to include adding improvements you need.

> http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20051107.asp

That's quite interesting. It's a far cry from the Free Software
Definition's freedom #1, but no doubt this is another positive step
from US courts.

> And the court noted that no damage was done to the copyright holder by
> someone else modifying their own copy of a work.

... because the copy was only for internal use. Quite unrelated with
the original points of this debate, that's all about distribution.

But no doubt it's a good thing. This is a reasoning that finds
support in the original rationale for copyrights, but the fact that
they have to resort to contortions such as thinking of "damage" shows
how far behind the original rationale was left :-(

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member °Sť Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-29-2008, 03:53 PM
"Callum Lerwick"
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu> wrote:


On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 17:04 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:

> Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu> wrote:

> > Plenty of companies that would be willing to release free software are

> > leery of releasing it as GPL

>

> Why?



You'd have to ask their lawyers. *But it's a fact.



>

> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *and of using GPL software.

>

> Now that is completely unwarranted.



You'd have to tell their lawyers. *But it's a fact.

As much as I hate to drag on this clusterfsck of zelotry any longer, I can't let this bullshit fly unopposed. Here, I'll stick to a concrete example:


Linden Lab is a small start-up, which may or may not even be pulling a profit yet, running off venture capital. They developed a closed-source virtual world, Second Life. A year ago they chose to release their client open source. What license did they choose? They chose the GPLv2. Think about it, if they had used a BSD-style license, some other company could take their code, start up their own for-profit service, and profit off Linden Lab's work without giving anything back, quite possibly putting Linden Lab out of business. Their investors would have never let that happen.


Without a license like the GPL, which ensures that derived works remain free, Linden Lab would have never open sourced the Second Life client. And that's a fact.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-29-2008, 04:39 PM
Matthew Saltzman
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 10:53 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 17:04 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > Matthew Saltzman <mjs@clemson.edu> wrote:
> > > Plenty of companies that would be willing to release free
software are
> > > leery of releasing it as GPL
> >
> > Why?
>
> You'd have to ask their lawyers. But it's a fact.
>
> >
> > > and of using GPL software.
> >
> > Now that is completely unwarranted.
>
> You'd have to tell their lawyers. But it's a fact.
>

As much as I hate to drag on this clusterfsck of zelotry any
longer, I can't
let this bullshit fly unopposed. Here, I'll stick to a concrete
example:

Linden Lab is a small start-up, which may or may not even be
pulling a
profit yet, running off venture capital. They developed a
closed-source
virtual world, Second Life. A year ago they chose to release
their client
open source. What license did they choose? They chose the GPLv2.
Think about
it, if they had used a BSD-style license, some other company
could take
their code, start up their own for-profit service, and profit
off Linden
Lab's work without giving anything back, quite possibly putting
Linden Lab
out of business. Their investors would have never let that
happen.

Without a license like the GPL, which ensures that derived works
remain
free, Linden Lab would have never open sourced the Second Life
client. And
that's a fact.

Good for them. (No sarcasm intended.) But an anecdote is not a proof.

I'm not arguing that companies that shy away from open source in general
or the GPL in particular always do so for good reasons. But it's clear
from the variety of licenses available that a significant number of
developers perceive that there are issues with the GPL that make them
uncomfortable, even if they are generally pro-FOSS.

The GPL is not the only license that protects code released under it
from incorporation into proprietary products. But some clauses in the
GPL prevent interoperability with other software that (for whatever
reason) was released under different licenses that even the FSF
acknowledges are in the spirit of freedom and open source. That's too
bad for free and open-source software.

--
Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-29-2008, 04:42 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 12:39 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> I'm not arguing that companies that shy away from open source in general
> or the GPL in particular always do so for good reasons.

Where "good reason" means "gross misunderstanding of the GPL licenses
and OpenSource development in general".

--
Jesse Keating RHCE (jkeating.livejournal.com)
Fedora Project (fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 06-29-2008, 06:54 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default Fedora Freedom and linux-libre

On Sun, 2008-06-29 at 12:39 -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> The GPL is not the only license that protects code released under it
> from incorporation into proprietary products. But some clauses in the
> GPL prevent interoperability with other software that (for whatever
> reason) was released under different licenses that even the FSF
> acknowledges are in the spirit of freedom and open source. That's too
> bad for free and open-source software.

Copyleft licenses are by nature incompatible with a number of other
licenses, and it's not because they are 'veil', a brief thinking about
the reasons for strong copyleft will make it evident why some licenses
are incompatible with others.

Companies that are 'scared' by whatever license should just change
lawyers/managers, they clearly do not understand the world they are
supposed to operate *.
Companies that strategically choose to not release software under
specific free software license just make choices. You have to ask their
managers. not their lawyers, why they made the choice.

Simo.

* I have personally met lawyers so used to proprietary licenses they
simply did *not* understand the GPL and other free software license.
Once they stop trying to read only the legalese and start first
understanding the philosophy beyond a Free Software License, they
usually come to term with these licenses.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org