Fasttrak100 questions...
So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one proprietary object file.
During my linux installation I was able to preload the module and have it detect the drives fine as a scsi device, so I was able to install the base system onto them.
The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the module into the scsi library by editing the Makefile doesn't seem to do it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this kernel on it.
Also, is it possible for Lilo to even boot this without a RAM disk somewhere? I guess Lilo has to know about the drive, but it can't know without the module...so am I screwed into using floppies with a RAM disk image anyways?
Thanks,
--James Lamanna
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
Quoted 20 lines · James Lamanna
So, I have a system that has 2 45GB IDE drives connected up to a Promise Technologies Fasttrack 100.
Promise Techonologies currently has a driver that you can compile against a 2.2 kernel into a module, but it also includes one proprietary object file.
During my linux installation I was able to preload the module and have it detect the drives fine as a scsi device, so I was able to install the base system onto them.The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the module into the scsi library by editing the
Makefiledoesn't seem to do it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this kernel on it.Also, is it possible for Lilo to even boot this without a RAM disk somewhere? I guess Lilo has to know about the drive, but it can't know without the module...so am I screwed into using floppies with a RAM disk image anyways?
Quoted 7 lines
Thanks,
--James Lamanna
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 6 lines · [email protected] (Andre Hedrick) writes:
NO!
Doing so VIOLATES the terms and agreement that you obtained the BINARY Soft-Raid Engine and the GPL terms of the kernel.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, James Lamanna wrote:
[...]
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
The question is, is there a way to compile this module into the kernel so that it will automatically detect the card? A simple linking of the module into the scsi library by editing the
Makefiledoesn't seem to do it. It doesn't detect the drives if I boot off of a floppy with this kernel on it.
[...]
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't give it away.
Regards
Henning
Signature · 9 lines
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected] Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected] D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines · Henning P. Schmiedehausen
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't give it away.
And you will never boot it because the resources conflict with out the module, go try it. I promise you that it will never boot if you build it in the kernel. Also the terms of acceptance of the module also means you can not built it inter the kernel.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Oh remember, I DEFINED the terms that the module could be created! Go and examine the wrapper and it is portions of the pdc202xx.c code that is mine. With that in mind, in order to use that GPL code, the restrictions and terms imposed were module exclusive.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 3 lines · Henning P. Schmiedehausen
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't give it away.
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 2 lines
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link, that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about the intent.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 2 lines
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link, that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about the intent.
Of the list of poeple here, only Alan was present with the discussion of the terms of how the FASTTRAK SCSI-Emulation API to ATA was defined. Since you are not in the position to define the terms of how the interaction between the two subsystems work, you have no clue that building it into the kernel will fail!
Second read the causes about "COMMERIAL INTENT", somewhere around section 7 paragraph 3.
I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are module only!
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
CTO Timpanogas Research Group
EVP Linux Development, TRG
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 11 lines · Andre Hedrick
Quoted 8 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 2 lines
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link, that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about the intent.
Quoted 8 lines
Of the list of poeple here, only Alan was present with the discussion of the terms of how the FASTTRAK SCSI-Emulation API to ATA was defined. Since you are not in the position to define the terms of how the interaction between the two subsystems work, you have no clue that building it into the kernel will fail!
Second read the causes about "COMMERIAL INTENT", somewhere around section 7 paragraph 3.
Section 7 paragraph 3 relates to patent infringement. The GNU WWW site is extremely clear on this issue:
"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist."
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). No restrictions are imposed in the GPL; none are intended, according to the FSF.
[jas88@dax linux-2.4.0-test11.vanilla]$ grep -i --context=3 commercial COPYING
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
That's the only occurrence of the word "commercial" in the GPL.
Quoted 3 lines
I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are module only!
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I have defined the terms that are acceptable to a binary module that incorporates GPL code of MINE! This I DEFINE THE TERMS, and they are module only!
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
Can I suggest you get a basic US copyright law text out of the local library and read it before continuing this. You might also want to read up on the background. Andre took some of his own code and granted them a conditional seperate license to use some of it in certain ways.
Your comments about the GPL are also incorrect. I can grant additional rights without something ceasing to GPL providing those rights do not cause a conflict with the rules the GPL cites notably the 'no additional restrictions' statement.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 2 lines · James A Sutherland
Nope. RMS defined the terms which apply to GPL code. You are free to define any other terms you like for your own code, but it is no longer GPLed in that case.
And the code for FASTTRAK is not GPL, James we did this once before. If Promise were to promote and tell people to link the object to the kernel every again, I will begin a law suit. Because the harm and damage caused to the ATA subsystem is not repairable. The damages are not limited.
Now I worked with Promise to get this all clean as a module that could be updated as there kernel evolves. If all of you go and SCREW up the work I did to try an allow a company that is not generally friendly to Linux as far as IP and technology issues are related, then I will stop trying to get them to expose the IP for the RAID signatures to export to the Linux SOFT RAID.
THIS WILL ROYALLY SCREW EVERYBODY! HAHAHAHA.
Now do not go dorking things that I am trying to make make public. This is really pissing me off!
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi!
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff
No it isnt. Some people seem to think it is. You only have to provide a change if you give someone the binaries concerned. Some people also think that 'linking' clauses mean they can just direct the customer to do the link, that also would appear to be untrue in legal precedent - the law cares about the intent.
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's modified version of serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable driver. Is that okay or not?
Pavel
Signature · 6 lines
I'm [email protected]. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's modified version of
serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines
This is currently happening with lucent winmodem driver: there's modified version of
serial.c, and customers are asked to compile it and (staticaly-)link it against proprietary code to get usable driver. Is that okay or not?
Probably not, its up to Ted to enforce I suspect.
Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the (completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
The legal issues are also incredibly murky, since the customers create the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad; although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program which makes a system() call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they share the same VM?
In any case, the FSF has their opinion, and at least one Ivy League law professor laughed aloud when he was asked what he thought about the FSF's legal theories; other people have their own. Most importantly, none of this has been tested in court. So it's probably not worth trying to settle this on the linux-kernel list.
As far as this particular case is concerned, at least Lucent is shipping part of the driver in source. Some of the other winmodem drivers are shipping a pure binary module, which means it will only work against a single kernel version, which locks out users form upgrading to newer kernels if they still want to use their winmodem. So at least Lucent is trying to be at least somewhat good guys about this.
I could threaten to sue them, but it's not clear to me what good it will do, short of depriving some users from being able to use their winmodem. I suppose we could encourage them to rewrite the modified-serial.c for scratch, but aside from making some GPL fanatics feel good, enriching some consultant and making Lucent a little poorer, what good does it really do in the long run? And I have better things to do with my time. At the same time, I certainly won't bless what they are doing. What they are doing is clearly wrong, and illegal. But it is an imperfect world that we live in, as the events in Florida have been clearly demonstrating over the past month.
Given the limited time that I have, I'd much rather spend it going after the Rockwell/Connexant winmodem driver, which also pretty clearly uses serial.c, but for which they've only distributed a single .o file for a specific kernel version. Or I could spend it on programming.....
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 11 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the (completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
Quoted 1 line
The legal issues are also incredibly murky,
that's "Merkey"
Quoted 7 lines
since the customers create
the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad; although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with
Quoted 8 lines
the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program which makes a
system()call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they share the same VM?
Under the "Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure" even looking at GPL code and using techniques it contains would contaminate anything someone works on. This doctrine put forward two concepts that have been used in trade secret cases to justify injunctions and non-competes in areas of IP pollution -- negative knowledge and inevitable misappropriation.
The argument goes something like this. Negative knowledge is defined as knowing what techniques do not work (as opposed to what techniques
do work). In the course of development of a piece of software,
there are many "blind alleys" and "false starts" that are encountered as an individual uses trial and error to perfect whatever piece of software he is writing. Over time, the person learns what approaches are blind alleys and which work. This knowledge becomes imprinted into the actual thinking processes of this person.
Source code can also contain notes and comments about what does not work, and what does work. Someone reading this source code would then incorporate these ideas and knowledge into their thinking processes. Companies spend lots of money paying engineers to develop software, and this "negative knowledge", under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure is legally the property of an employer since they paid an engineer to experiment and
learn it. This is how companies are able to get non-compete
court orders against employees in trade secret lawsuits -- they argue that noone is going to go down a development path using ideas or approaches they know do not work. This argument goes on to state that if two engineers, one who had access to a piece of code vs. one who did not were to start at the same time working on the same problem, the person who had access to the code would finish first because he would "inevitably use" the knowledge gained from access to the source code.
Let's say for example two engineers wanted to write a new Linux-like replacement. One of them had access to ftp.kernel.org and the other did not. Which one of the engineers would finish first? Obviously the one with access to ftp.kernel.org would finish first and would not have had to use trial and error to get all the IOCTL calls
working, etc. The engineer without source code access would take
longer, perhaps by a factor of years, to complete the same project.
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative work".
There are a lot of big software companies who believe this and fear application of the doctrine of inevitable disclosure relative to GPL code. Novell and Microsoft both do not even allow employees to bring GPL code into the building -- period -- for fear that someone will attempt to file a claim that they have "converted" GPL code and created derivative works that may have contaminated non-GPL code projects. Novell has an official standing policy barring employees from using GPL code. That's why all the Linux work for NetWare is done in the India development center, and not the US, out of fear of IP pollution in the Provo facility. When I officed at the Microsoft campus in 1999, they had similiar policies, and were even more strict than Novell.
Now, in reality, these folks have employees in both companies who download stuff at home, and putz around with it, GPL code included, but that's a lot different from these companies having official policies allowing projects to use GPL code in their normal course of business.
In short, under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, a GPL copyright holder could succeed with a claim of conversion from someone simply looking at a piece of GPL code, then using whatever it contained to build either interface modules or a module with similiar functionality. It would be a hard call for a sitting judge to make, but I have seen actual cases where a judge does just that with the help of a special master.
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it used this way. Novell has blocked all internal access to the NWFS ftp server TRG, BTW, because they are afraid I would attempt to apply the doctrine to force them to open source NetWare projects if they download NWFS and used it internally with eDirectory. They've told us so.
This may help you understand just how complicated this whole IP stuff is relative to derived works. It's undefined under current case law and precednt relative to the GPL, but these big companies are taking no chances....
:-)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>
Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative work".
That's bullshit. Copyright law very clearly states that it protects the fixation of an idea in a medium, and that copyright explicitly does not protect the idea itself. The concept of what is a derived work is very clearly understood, and there have been a lot of court cases to define this precedent. (My understanding is that in realm of music 7 notes in sequence, if copied, is prima facie evidence that there is a derived work. Not 5 notes, and not 8 notes, but seven notes. Gotta love those lawyers at work. Aren't you glad they settled that?)
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it used this way.
That's a different matter. If you use NDA and Trade secret law, then yes, might be able to enslave programmers using such a law. However most courts have strict limits to how far they will take non-compete arguments, and if an NDA turned into a non-compete, past a certain point they will say that a person has a right to earn a living..... Fortunately most judges will apply some amount of common sense, even despite their law school training. In any case, the GPL doesn't involve NDA's or Trade Secrets, so saying that this doctrine could be used to contaminate non-GPL code simply by having people look at GPL code is bullshit.
No question, though, the first thing we should do, is kill all the lawyers. (And this is now definitely off-topic for the linux-kernel list.)
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 10 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative work".
Quoted 3 lines
That's bullshit. Copyright law very clearly states that it protects the fixation of an idea in a medium, and that copyright explicitly does not protect the idea itself. The concept of what is a derived work is very
State Laws may be controlling if they involve contracts. It has nothing to do with Copyright Law, but with the terms of license for someone's code. I've seen this crap applied. I've even been on the receiving end of it, and been enjoined from working on PUBLIC GPL CODE for 18 months because of an AGREEMENT and not copyright laws.
Quoted 1 line
clearly understood, and there have been a lot of court cases to define
Under inevitability, the neural impules in your brain can be ruled to be a derivative work. Believe me, I am not arguing for the doctrine, but informing you of it's existence and the broad scope it has in IP cases.
Quoted 11 lines
this precedent. (My understanding is that in realm of music 7 notes in sequence, if copied, is prima facie evidence that there is a derived work. Not 5 notes, and not 8 notes, but seven notes. Gotta love those lawyers at work. Aren't you glad they settled that?)
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it used this way.
Quoted 4 lines
That's a different matter. If you use NDA and Trade secret law, then yes, might be able to enslave programmers using such a law. However most courts have strict limits to how far they will take non-compete arguments, and if an NDA turned into a non-compete, past a certain point
The legal limit is 18 months in most states. This "I have a right to make a living argument" only holds water if the other side refuses to post a bond. If they post a large enough bond, a court WILL rule in favor of inevitability if they make a good case for it. (The bond required to keep me from programming for 18 months cost Novell $10,000,000.00.)
Quoted 2 lines
they will say that a person has a right to earn a living..... Fortunately most judges will apply some amount of common sense, even
US Judges are pontius pilate's all -- with hearts as black as the robes they wear. They don't care about you, or your rights. Remember, almost all judges are lawyers who are too old or to incompetent to practice law so they get themselves an appointment. Most of them were crooked lawyers who went into politics (which is how a lawyer gets made into a judge, BTW, he goes into politics).
Quoted 2 lines
despite their law school training. In any case, the GPL doesn't involve NDA's or Trade Secrets, so saying that this doctrine could be used to
It has to do with contract law, which is what the doctrine of inevitability is all about. Trade secrets have nothing to do with it, it's a question of knowledge gained via access to code through some form of agreement. In employment situations, it's a trade secret agreement, here in Linux, it's a GPL agreement.
Quoted 2 lines
contaminate non-GPL code simply by having people look at GPL code is bullshit.
I argued that looking at Novell Public Code under their form of GPL would not contaminate -- a court ruled otherwise. The court ruled that under inevitability, public code on Novell's website and slides presented at Brianshare, even though they were public, had the affect of contaminating our internal projects under this doctrine. You don't want to kill all the lawyers, you want to kill all the judges -- it was a judge that came up with this inevitability doctrine in the first place....
:-)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking employment as a programmer that the employer's product is inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade secret? Can a previous employee get an injunction against their former employer to cease and desist from using this negative knowledge?
If so, I might have a solution: make the Linux kernel required reading in University programming classes!
Quoted 11 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 10 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 18:21:26 -0700
From: "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]>Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative work".
Signature · 9 lines
Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦ [email protected] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦ http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦ ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦ ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 10 lines · Brian F. G. Bidulock
Jeff,
Have you also seen this applied where it is to the employer's disadvantage? For example, given that I looked at and worked with GPL code (say Linux kernel) in University before taking employment as a programmer that the employer's product is inevitably contaiminated and no longer a trade secret? Can a previous employee get an injunction against their former employer to cease and desist from using this negative knowledge?
Quoted 2 lines
If so, I might have a solution: make the Linux kernel required reading in University programming classes!
Trade Secrets are defined by something called the Uniform Tade Secret Act, which has been adopted in most states. It calls for several points that must be met in order for something to be protected as a "trade secret". Before this act, Muna vs. Microbiological (1964) was one of the landmark cases outlining trade secret law in the US. A lot has happened since Muna, but basically, these are the points.
1. A trade secret, must of course, be a "secret". 2. Cannot be readily ascertainable to someone skilled in the art. 3. Reasonable safegards must have been taken to protect it's secrecy. 4. Must have indendent economic value.
Technically, based on the premise of negative knowledge, someone could work for company A trying to build a software product, and fail at each attempt, thereby, accumulating negative knowledge. This person could then quit and go to work for Company B, build the same product, this time completing it, using previous negative knowledge gained from Company A. If Company A, had an agreement respecting trade secrets, under inevitability, Company A could claim the Company B's product was based on their IP if the employee did it within 18 months of departing Company A.
This is why I think inevitability is a ridculous doctrine. It makes claim to the work experinece of employees as IP.
In theory, an employee could not obtain the injunction because he would have no standing to bring a cause of action, but the copyright holder would have standing and could if he could show that the employee used negative knowledge and that he did so within a certain period of time. It's even more complicated, trade secret law makes claims that common software components arranged in new ways would qualify as a trade secret. This could also mean that any new software this person wrote would necessarily be intertwined with GPL code and trade secrets of the employer. In such a case, a Judge would "balance the equities", and would have to make a call, like telling the company to remove the GPL sections, and/or requireing the portions of the code be open sourced. He could also go the other way, and rule some sections are not covered under inevitablity.
It would be a very complex case, BTW (trade secrets cases always are).
:-)
Jeff
Quoted 1 line
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 12 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 11 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:18:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>Well, it's not up to just me, given that Linus also has his copyright on the code (although I doubt there's more than a few lines which are originally his). There are some other people who have contributed code to the serial driver in the past, although most have probably not given me more than a dozen lines of code or so, which seems to be the (completely untested in court) standard which the FSF uses to decide whether or not they need to get formal legal papers signed.
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 1 line
The legal issues are also incredibly murky,
that's "Merkey"
Quoted 15 lines
since the customers create
the derived work, and issues of intent aside, you can't necessarily use intent to change the legal definition of "derived work". (Be glad; although it can be used to create a loophole in GPL, just meditate a while on what the MPAA could do with such an "intent" argument before you decide whether or not it's a good thing. Or think what Microsoft could do if they could make their EULA's as infectious as the GPL with the "intent" argument.) The whole dynamic linking argument is a very slippery slope; where do you draw the line? Does a shell script which calls a GPL program get infected? What about a propietary C program which makes asystem()call to invoke a GPL'ed bash? What about an RPC call across the network? What about a GNOME Corba interface? Is it OK if it's on separate machines, but are they considered a single program if the CORBA client and server are on the same machine, since now they share the same VM?
BTW, for those legal folks who also demand I post case law citations, please see the Pesico vs. (I forget the guys name) case. Just get on Westlaw,
and look up "Pepsico". This is the case where this doctrine was created
and applied by a state judge. The case was upheld, and has been used all over the US since then to shaft departing employees from big software/hardware companies.
Jeff
Quoted 85 lines
Under the "Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure" even looking at GPL code and using techniques it contains would contaminate anything someone works on. This doctrine put forward two concepts that have been used in trade secret cases to justify injunctions and non-competes in areas of IP pollution -- negative knowledge and inevitable misappropriation.
The argument goes something like this. Negative knowledge is defined as knowing what techniques do not work (as opposed to what techniques
do work). In the course of development of a piece of software,
there are many "blind alleys" and "false starts" that are encountered as an individual uses trial and error to perfect whatever piece of software he is writing. Over time, the person learns what approaches are blind alleys and which work. This knowledge becomes imprinted into the actual thinking processes of this person.Source code can also contain notes and comments about what does not work, and what does work. Someone reading this source code would then incorporate these ideas and knowledge into their thinking processes. Companies spend lots of money paying engineers to develop software, and this "negative knowledge", under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure is legally the property of an employer since they paid an engineer to experiment and
learn it. This is how companies are able to get non-compete
court orders against employees in trade secret lawsuits -- they argue that noone is going to go down a development path using ideas or approaches they know do not work. This argument goes on to state that if two engineers, one who had access to a piece of code vs. one who did not were to start at the same time working on the same problem, the person who had access to the code would finish first because he would "inevitably use" the knowledge gained from access to the source code.Let's say for example two engineers wanted to write a new Linux-like replacement. One of them had access to ftp.kernel.org and the other did not. Which one of the engineers would finish first? Obviously the one with access to ftp.kernel.org would finish first and would not have had to use trial and error to get all the IOCTL calls
working, etc. The engineer without source code access would take
longer, perhaps by a factor of years, to complete the same project.Under this argument, it is argued that the engineer who had source code access "inevitably used" negative knowledge he gained from his study of the Linux sources. Absent the vague descriptions of what a "derivative work" is in the GPL, it could be argued that conversion of any knowledge contained in GPL code is a "derivative work".
There are a lot of big software companies who believe this and fear application of the doctrine of inevitable disclosure relative to GPL code. Novell and Microsoft both do not even allow employees to bring GPL code into the building -- period -- for fear that someone will attempt to file a claim that they have "converted" GPL code and created derivative works that may have contaminated non-GPL code projects. Novell has an official standing policy barring employees from using GPL code. That's why all the Linux work for NetWare is done in the India development center, and not the US, out of fear of IP pollution in the Provo facility. When I officed at the Microsoft campus in 1999, they had similiar policies, and were even more strict than Novell.
Now, in reality, these folks have employees in both companies who download stuff at home, and putz around with it, GPL code included, but that's a lot different from these companies having official policies allowing projects to use GPL code in their normal course of business.
In short, under the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, a GPL copyright holder could succeed with a claim of conversion from someone simply looking at a piece of GPL code, then using whatever it contained to build either interface modules or a module with similiar functionality. It would be a hard call for a sitting judge to make, but I have seen actual cases where a judge does just that with the help of a special master.
Personally, I think the doctrine is one of the most evil fucking things in existence, legal opponents call it "the doctrine of intellectual slavery" because it has the affect under the law to be able to convert simple NDA agreements into non-compete agreements, and I've seen it used this way. Novell has blocked all internal access to the NWFS ftp server TRG, BTW, because they are afraid I would attempt to apply the doctrine to force them to open source NetWare projects if they download NWFS and used it internally with eDirectory. They've told us so.
Quoted 9 lines
This may help you understand just how complicated this whole IP stuff is relative to derived works. It's undefined under current case law and precednt relative to the GPL, but these big companies are taking no chances....
:-)
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use and give it to no one, I am _not at all_ forced to make it public.
Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL, then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any restrictions on your redistribution of these sources. Only thing that you must obey is again the GPL.
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal stuff.
You can't force me to give you a copy of my blafoo driver until I chose to either release it to the public in which case I must put it under GPL as it contains GPLed code or distribute a binary version to a customer, which then in turn has the right to request the source from me and (after he got it, because I am bound by GPL to give it to him), distribute it freely as this right is granted to him by GPL.
I am even allowed to erase my sources without making them ever public.
Please read the GPL:
--- cut ---
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program --- cut ---
I don't distribute the software. I just run it.
--- cut ---
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
--- cut ---
I chose not to copy and distribute these modified programs which is perfectly covered by my license which I got when obtaining the sources.
Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Regards
Henning
Quoted 14 lines · Dr. Kelsey Hudson
Quoted 3 lines · Henning P. Schmiedehausen
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't give it away.
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature · 9 lines
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected] Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected] D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 5 lines
Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Ask me for the GPL code that I wrote as the author, that am working on at the rates define. I will tell you to go right to hell on a bobsled! Oh and I will push to make sure you do not waste time getting there.
You are being a total ASS.
As the author of GPL code I have the right to pull the GPL if I wish and never update or publish the updates, and YOU have not legal authority to force me to send you SHIT! Does that make it real clear or not?
Later,
Andre Hedrick
Linux ATA Development
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Stop your abusive language! (Re: Fasttrak100 questions...)
In reply to Henning P . SchmiedehausenOn Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 01:11:45PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
...
Quoted 1 line
You are being a total ASS.
...
Did you look in the mirror recently? I am sick and tired of your abusive language on linux-kernel. You may be a big kernel-honcho and have contributed more code than 99% of the people on the list, but that does not give you the right to abuse anyone you choose just because he has an opinion you do not share.
IMHO you should grow up and obtain a decent set of manners as soon as possible.
Dominik Kubla
PS. Your comments make me wonder if you actually read the whole mail you
were referring to.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 10 lines · Henning P . Schmiedehausen
No.
If I modify the kernel or any other GPL software for my personal use and give it to no one, I am
_notatall_forced to make it public.Only if I distribute a compiled kernel or any other program under GPL, then I must give also the sources on request (!) and may not put any restrictions on your redistribution of these sources. Only thing that you must obey is again the GPL.
Quoted 4 lines
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal stuff.
Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own benefit with it, GPL or no.
That being said, the party seeking the order would be required to show irreparable harm, which in this case, could be shown (you stated you intend to act in bad faith and breach the terms of the license). I do not believe a Copyright holder, as I understand the GPL, would be able to stop you from redistributing your changes and/or selling them. The GPL would grant you this right. However, the copyright holder could obtain an order forcing your compliance to the license in the US (and even in some foreign countries, but not all), and could also simply sue you for "conversion", then issue a Subpeona Dues Tecum, and obtain the code via discovery uver F.R.C.P./U.C.C.P., and you would be ordered to produce it, or face criminal contempt charges.
If there's a finding of bad faith (i.e. you knew you were violating the license and did it anyway), the judge could also hit you for punitive damages.
Actually you are part right and part wrong. If the terms of the license require to return "derivative works" (which I believe the GPL does), you have an obligation to provide these changes upon request. It's also just plain old good manners.
:-)
Jeff
Quoted 7 lines
You can't force me to give you a copy of my blafoo driver until I chose to either release it to the public in which case I must put it under GPL as it contains GPLed code or distribute a binary version to a customer, which then in turn has the right to request the source from me and (after he got it, because I am bound by GPL to give it to him), distribute it freely as this right is granted to him by GPL.
You have balls a big as mine.
Quoted 8 lines
I am even allowed to erase my sources without making them ever public.
Please read the GPL:
--- cut ---
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
modification >>> you're nailed.
:-)
Jeff
Quoted 33 lines
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program --- cut ---
I don't distribute the software. I just run it.
--- cut ---
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
--- cut ---I chose not to copy and distribute these modified programs which is perfectly covered by my license which I got when obtaining the sources.
Anything else would mean that I can send E-Mail to Linus Torvalds every five minutes and request a verbatim copy of his current hacking kernel tree as it is under GPL, which he is the forced to give to me because of the GPL. This would be utter nonsense.
Regards
HenningQuoted 6 lines · Dr. Kelsey Hudson
Quoted 3 lines · Henning P. Schmiedehausen
No, it does not. Distributing does. You will never get this right. You can compile into your kernel anything you like as long as you don't give it away.
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 8 lines
You are wrong: If you modify the kernel you have to make it available for anyone who wishes to use it; that's also in the GPL. You can't add stuff to it and then not distribute it, that's in violation.
Kelsey Hudson [email protected]
Software Engineer
Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Signature · 9 lines
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected] Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected] D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 8 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 4 lines · Henning P . Schmiedehausen
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal stuff.
Quoted 6 lines
Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own benefit with it, GPL or no.
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for you to make your code available to anybody.
Only once you distribute the software to others do you have to make the code available, and even then you only have to make it available to those who have the binaries. Of course, they can then turn around and do whatever they feel like with it, but thats a different issue.
Signature · 8 lines
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 16 lines · Christopher Friesen
Quoted 8 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 4 lines · Henning P . Schmiedehausen
I use heavily patched kernels with lots of inhouse-stuff on a regular base for my inhouse use and there is _no_ way for you to even get a glimpse at it. I don't give this to anyone, it's all just my personal stuff.
Quoted 6 lines
Depending on the terms of your use of the code, the Copyright holder can obtain an order compelling you to hand over the code from a State or US District Court Judge, if you are using it under the terms of the GPL and fail to provide the modifications upon request, and you are shown to be "converting" business opportunities to your own benefit with it, GPL or no.
Quoted 6 lines
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for you to make your code available to anybody.
Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
:-)
Jeff
Quoted 16 lines
Only once you distribute the software to others do you have to make the code available, and even then you only have to make it available to those who have the binaries. Of course, they can then turn around and do whatever they feel like with it, but thats a different issue.
Signature · 8 lines
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 10 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 6 lines · Christopher Friesen
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for you to make your code available to anybody.
Quoted 6 lines
Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
:-)
Well of course this is the case. I specifically said that I am the only one that ever ran the binaries. Once you start distributing it to other people, then they can request the source additions/modifications and you are obligated to provide it.
Theoretically you could use software based on GPL'd code all throughout a for-profit corporation and make boatloads of money using that software. As long as you don't distribute it to customers outside the company, and as long as none of the employees using it ask for the source and distribute it outside the company, nobody outside that corporation has any right to the source even though it is being used for profit.
Signature · 8 lines
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 23 lines · Christopher Friesen
Quoted 10 lines · Jeff V. Merkey
Quoted 6 lines · Christopher Friesen
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it. If you have some code that you have written that is based on GPL'd code, and you are the only person that ever runs the binaries, then there is no obligation for you to make your code available to anybody.
Quoted 6 lines
Depends on what terms the code is provided under. Using GPL code in a for profit enterprise and distributing it to customers does require that the changes be provided upon request. I have read the GPL, and I've had a lot of lawyers around here read and analyze it too.
:-)
Well of course this is the case. I specifically said that I am the only one that ever ran the binaries. Once you start distributing it to other people, then they can request the source additions/modifications and you are obligated to provide it.
Quoted 7 lines
Theoretically you could use software based on GPL'd code all throughout a for-profit corporation and make boatloads of money using that software. As long as you don't distribute it to customers outside the company, and as long as none of the employees using it ask for the source and distribute it outside the company, nobody outside that corporation has any right to the source even though it is being used for profit.
I'm not certain this is technically correct, but I think it would be worth having some folks here investigate this secnario.
Jeff
Quoted 6 lines
Signature · 5 lines
-- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Christopher Friesen]
Quoted 3 lines
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and for that you do *not* have a "only if they ask for it" clause.
Or so it seems to some people, like RMS. See this week's DWN: there is a nice long discussion in debian-devel about this. Apparently RMS demands that all GPL'd Debian binary packages include a copy -- it is not enough that the Debian base system already has a copy and that all GPL'd source tarballs include a copy.
I do not agree with this interpretation, because it would mean that any GPL'd file that can possibly be independently downloaded (such as a .c file from a CVS server) must include that same 17k document.
...But just so everyone knows: according to RMS, every file on your FTP server that you provide under the GPL v2 must include a copy of the GPL. (Easy enough to do with tar files, harder for other formats, and never mind the wasted bandwidth.) Having the GPL in a separate file on your site does not count, apparently.
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi!
Quoted 18 lines
[Christopher Friesen]
Quoted 3 lines
I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and for that you do *not* have a "only if they ask for it" clause.
Or so it seems to some people, like RMS. See this week's DWN: there is a nice long discussion in debian-devel about this. Apparently RMS demands that all GPL'd Debian binary packages include a copy -- it is not enough that the Debian base system already has a copy and that all GPL'd source tarballs include a copy.
I do not agree with this interpretation, because it would mean that any GPL'd file that can possibly be independently downloaded (such as a .c file from a CVS server) must include that same 17k document.
Quoted 5 lines
...But just so everyone knows: according to RMS, every file on your FTP server that you provide under the GPL v2 must include a copy of the GPL. (Easy enough to do with tar files, harder for other formats, and never mind the wasted bandwidth.) Having the GPL in a separate file on your site does not count, apparently.
Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Pavel
PS: That's crazy. Including it by reference should be enough. I do not want waste 17K on every file.
Signature · 6 lines
I'm [email protected]. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [email protected] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Pavel Machek]
Quoted 1 line
Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Someone on debian-devel thought of this, but went one further: change the gzip header magic so that only a "GPL-enabled" gzip can decompress it.
I wonder how the zlib maintainers (zlib is not GPL) would feel about having to add support for *that*. (:
Quoted 2 lines
PS: That's crazy. Including it by reference should be enough. I do not want waste 17K on every file.
It's not crazy, it's RMS. (: I guess he is worried about some .deb file falling into the wrong hands and being used on a system where nobody has heard of the GPL and there is no copy available ... then the target user won't know his or her rights and responsibilities.
Yeah, I think it's pretty far-fetched too.
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/