* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd @ 2003-07-23 5:12 Adam J. Richter 2003-07-23 5:28 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Adam J. Richter @ 2003-07-23 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: andersen; +Cc: jgarzik, linux-kernel >> = Jeff Garzik > = Erik Andersen >> On a legal note, I would prefer that completely new drivers (i.e. no >> copied code from other sources) be licensing in the same way as >> libata.c. Maintainer's preference in the end, of course, but I would >> like to strongly encourage following libata.c's example ;-) > >By that I assume you mean osl-1.1 like libata.c, rather than GPL >like ata_piix.c.... [...] Just to clarify, the changes in ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jgarzik/patchkits/2.6/2.6.0-test1-libata1.patch.gz appear to be covered by terms that amount of "your choice of osl-1.1 OR GPL-2." It is the permission to use the code under the terms of the GPL (or some other GPL compatible permissions) that allow code to be linked into a program that contains GPL'ed code, like the Linux kernel, assuming the Free Software Foundation's statements that osl-1.1 is GPL-incompatible are correct (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). So, please remember to keep "or GPLv2" provision or something similar to keep your contribution GPL compatible. I'm glad to see more serial ATA support now that SATA drives are becoming common, and I'm also looking forward to giving libata a whirl. Thank you both for your contributions. Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Miplitas, California 95035 +1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America "Free Software For The Rest Of Us." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 5:12 Promise SATA driver GPL'd Adam J. Richter @ 2003-07-23 5:28 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:40 ` Adam Sampson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adam J. Richter; +Cc: andersen, jgarzik, linux-kernel To bad people do not see the lameness of GPL and the superior quality of OSL. The former forces the author to assign copyright to FSF to gain legal services or write the check out of their own pocket. The latter provides a means to allow the author to feed the sharks and protect the interest of the OSC. GPL == Author pays legal costs regardless. OSL == Provisions for legals to be recovered. This is one of the reasons I quit publish GPL because the costs I have to defend my works in the past are going to be heavy, and I am tired of having stuff stolen. So switching to OSL for the kernel as a whole is a no brainer. Leaving it as GPL is a way to promote thieft. Simple facts, and do not give a rip about arguements against OSL in favor of GPL because they all are lose when it comes down to the issue of defending the interest of the "author" and the OSC (open source community) A vote for continuing GPL in the kernel is a promote and enable the thieves on the world. Narrow vision of a utopian stupidity without a means to kick arse to defend the broader issues is ... Adam I like you, and your politics and ideas of GPL suck. :-) Cheers Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote: > >> = Jeff Garzik > > = Erik Andersen > > >> On a legal note, I would prefer that completely new drivers (i.e. no > >> copied code from other sources) be licensing in the same way as > >> libata.c. Maintainer's preference in the end, of course, but I would > >> like to strongly encourage following libata.c's example ;-) > > > >By that I assume you mean osl-1.1 like libata.c, rather than GPL > >like ata_piix.c.... [...] > > Just to clarify, the changes in > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/jgarzik/patchkits/2.6/2.6.0-test1-libata1.patch.gz > appear to be covered by terms that amount of "your choice of osl-1.1 > OR GPL-2." It is the permission to use the code under the terms > of the GPL (or some other GPL compatible permissions) that allow > code to be linked into a program that contains GPL'ed code, like > the Linux kernel, assuming the Free Software Foundation's statements > that osl-1.1 is GPL-incompatible are correct > (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). So, please remember > to keep "or GPLv2" provision or something similar to keep your > contribution GPL compatible. > > I'm glad to see more serial ATA support now that SATA > drives are becoming common, and I'm also looking forward to > giving libata a whirl. Thank you both for your contributions. > > Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road > adam@yggdrasil.com \ / Miplitas, California 95035 > +1 408 309-6081 | g g d r a s i l United States of America > "Free Software For The Rest Of Us." > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 5:28 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree 2003-07-23 10:29 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 10:40 ` Adam Sampson 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 9:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, linux-kernel On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:28:26PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: >... > A vote for continuing GPL in the kernel is a promote and enable the > thieves on the world. Narrow vision of a utopian stupidity without a > means to kick arse to defend the broader issues is ... >... For the FSF it's easy to change the copyright in their software since they have copyright assignments for all software contributed. There are _many_ people that have a copyright on parts of the Linux kernel (the exact number might be different in different countries due to different copyright laws). To change the copyright to anything other than GPL v2 is practically impossible (even if a new version of the GPL might fix the deficits you mentioned). > Cheers > > Andre Hedrick cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree 2003-07-23 10:21 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 10:37 ` Promise SATA driver GPL'd Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:29 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Matthias Andree @ 2003-07-23 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote: > There are _many_ people that have a copyright on parts of the Linux > kernel (the exact number might be different in different countries due > to different copyright laws). To change the copyright to anything other > than GPL v2 is practically impossible (even if a new version of the GPL > might fix the deficits you mentioned). How about the "or, at your option, any later version" clause in the GPL? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-07-23 10:21 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 11:47 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 10:37 ` Promise SATA driver GPL'd Adrian Bunk 1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-23 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Previously Matthias Andree wrote: > How about the "or, at your option, any later version" clause in the GPL? Does everyone use that clause? I certainly don't. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 10:21 ` Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-23 11:47 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 11:54 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 22:22 ` On "any later version" in GPL [Was: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd] Horst von Brand 0 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Wichert Akkerman; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 11:21, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Matthias Andree wrote: > > How about the "or, at your option, any later version" clause in the GPL? > > Does everyone use that clause? I certainly don't. It is a good idea to do so because otherwise any version can be used, including the GPLv1 which is far weaker in some areas. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 11:47 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 11:54 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 22:22 ` On "any later version" in GPL [Was: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd] Horst von Brand 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-23 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Previously Alan Cox wrote: > It is a good idea to do so because otherwise any version can be used, > including the GPLv1 which is far weaker in some areas. I restrict it to version 2, since I have no idea what any version 2+N will be. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* On "any later version" in GPL [Was: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd] 2003-07-23 11:47 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 11:54 ` Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Horst von Brand 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Horst von Brand @ 2003-07-23 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> said: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 11:21, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Matthias Andree wrote: > > > How about the "or, at your option, any later version" clause in the GPL? > > > > Does everyone use that clause? I certainly don't. > > It is a good idea to do so because otherwise any version can be used, > including the GPLv1 which is far weaker in some areas. GPLv1 can't be later than v2, does it? OTOH, I'd assume v2+N either takes away rights ( == closes loopholes, ==> no "you" will take the option if they want to make use of the loophole, i.e., the clause is of no use), or gives more rights to the "you", something the giver probably did not intend. Either way, it makes little sense to me (IANAL and all that, anyway). -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree 2003-07-23 10:21 ` Wichert Akkerman @ 2003-07-23 10:37 ` Adrian Bunk 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 10:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:12:28PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > There are _many_ people that have a copyright on parts of the Linux > > kernel (the exact number might be different in different countries due > > to different copyright laws). To change the copyright to anything other > > than GPL v2 is practically impossible (even if a new version of the GPL > > might fix the deficits you mentioned). > > How about the "or, at your option, any later version" clause in the GPL? This clause is not part of the GPL, it's only a suggestion on how to copyright your code. COPYING in the kernel sources includes an explict statement. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree @ 2003-07-23 10:29 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 10:51 ` Adrian Bunk 1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 10:08, Adrian Bunk wrote: > There are _many_ people that have a copyright on parts of the Linux > kernel (the exact number might be different in different countries due > to different copyright laws). To change the copyright to anything other > than GPL v2 is practically impossible (even if a new version of the GPL > might fix the deficits you mentioned). v2 or later. The GPL only permits "any version" or "n or later". ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 10:29 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 10:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 11:43 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:29:10AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 10:08, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > There are _many_ people that have a copyright on parts of the Linux > > kernel (the exact number might be different in different countries due > > to different copyright laws). To change the copyright to anything other > > than GPL v2 is practically impossible (even if a new version of the GPL > > might fix the deficits you mentioned). > > v2 or later. The GPL only permits "any version" or "n or later". Section 9 of the GPL says: <-- snip --> The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. <-- snip --> This implicitely says that if the version of the GPL is specified it's fixed. AFAIR in 2.2 times Linus added the explicit version statement present in COPYING. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 10:51 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 11:43 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 12:17 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 12:32 ` Martin Diehl 0 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 11:51, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > v2 or later. The GPL only permits "any version" or "n or later". > This implicitely says that if the version of the GPL is specified it's > fixed. It says you may use "this or any later version" or you may not specify. It doesn't permit you to specify "this version alone". See the no additional restrictions clause ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 11:43 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 12:17 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 12:32 ` Martin Diehl 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 11:51, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > v2 or later. The GPL only permits "any version" or "n or later". > > > This implicitely says that if the version of the GPL is specified it's > > fixed. > > It says you may use "this or any later version" or you may not specify. > It doesn't permit you to specify "this version alone". See the no > additional restrictions clause "If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation." IANAL and I'm not a native English speaker. >From my understanding, this implicitely says that if the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and no "any later version", the version is fixed. cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 11:43 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 12:17 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 12:32 ` Martin Diehl 2003-07-23 12:57 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Martin Diehl @ 2003-07-23 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Adrian Bunk, Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 11:51, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > v2 or later. The GPL only permits "any version" or "n or later". > > > This implicitely says that if the version of the GPL is specified it's > > fixed. > > It says you may use "this or any later version" or you may not specify. > It doesn't permit you to specify "this version alone". See the no > additional restrictions clause Sorry, IANAL of course, but IMHO this can't be true: If the copyright holder puts a note on his code saying it is released under version 2 of the GPL then clearly neither the "or any later" nor the "not specified" cases apply. And I really fail to see how one could argue this were an additional restriction compared to GPL v2 literally! Btw, you aren't saying linux-kernel would *not* come with a valid GPL, according to linux/COPYING, are you? Martin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 12:32 ` Martin Diehl @ 2003-07-23 12:57 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 19:08 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Martin Diehl Cc: Adrian Bunk, Andre Hedrick, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 13:32, Martin Diehl wrote: > If the copyright holder puts a note on his code saying it is released > under version 2 of the GPL then clearly neither the "or any later" nor the > "not specified" cases apply. And I really fail to see how one could > argue this were an additional restriction compared to GPL v2 literally! If the copyright holder is not permitted to make such a restriction and use the existing code then yes. > Btw, you aren't saying linux-kernel would *not* come with a valid GPL, > according to linux/COPYING, are you? The kernel is under GPL. I'm not sure what Linus scribblings make change if anything. I understand why Linus did it "I dont want the FSF doing something silly" and also why the FSF did it "so we can fix the license". Ultimately it makes little difference, Linus is perfectly entitled to refuse to add anything that doesn't allow GPLv2 use to his kernel tree. GPLv2 only effectively means your code becomes non-free if a flaw is found in that GPL revision, and nobody can fix it for 70 years so its an awkward trade off I suspect this is getting offtopic 8) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 12:57 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 19:08 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan, The simple flaw is present and pointed out in my inital statement. GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. What I find odd in you politics which stinks, is you and redhat are pumping OSL into new features which are not generally submitted to the standard base. I do not care, but it does look funny. Interesting points how the issues of holding the kernel to GPLv2 may actually be a restriction to invalidate the actually license. This tends to make it possible for more arguements against the author when pursuing violations. Just a nickel to stir the pot. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 13:32, Martin Diehl wrote: > > If the copyright holder puts a note on his code saying it is released > > under version 2 of the GPL then clearly neither the "or any later" nor the > > "not specified" cases apply. And I really fail to see how one could > > argue this were an additional restriction compared to GPL v2 literally! > > If the copyright holder is not permitted to make such a restriction and > use the existing code then yes. > > > Btw, you aren't saying linux-kernel would *not* come with a valid GPL, > > according to linux/COPYING, are you? > > The kernel is under GPL. I'm not sure what Linus scribblings make change > if anything. I understand why Linus did it "I dont want the FSF doing > something silly" and also why the FSF did it "so we can fix the license". > > Ultimately it makes little difference, Linus is perfectly entitled to > refuse to add anything that doesn't allow GPLv2 use to his kernel tree. > > GPLv2 only effectively means your code becomes non-free if a flaw is > found in that GPL revision, and nobody can fix it for 70 years so its > an awkward trade off > > I suspect this is getting offtopic 8) > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 19:08 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 19:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:46 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 20:08, Andre Hedrick wrote: > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. I don't think anyone says the GPL is a perfect license > What I find odd in you politics which stinks, is you and redhat are > pumping OSL into new features which are not generally submitted to the > standard base. I do not care, but it does look funny. Red Hat is using OSL for various new projects based on the fact that lawyers and legal scholars think that the OSL is the better license to be using and that it achieves desired goals for free software. The kernel however is GPL and its kind of hard to change that. Certainly Red Hat can't do that. OSL wasn't around when the kernel began or my guess is Linus would have gone that way to avoid political baggage. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 19:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:46 ` Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List So to truly understand your statements, it is a possible position of RedHat to use and promote OSL over GPL? If this is the case, where you have an creedence in previous statements about GPL? What it comes down to is make the changes in module.h to make OSL products an code functional with GPL and to hell with FSF. There ablitity to freely impose restriction of compatablity is a restriction in itself. Thus can have the effect if invalidating all the licenses issued to date as it relates to the kernel. In effect making the RTU/TOS non existant. This does seem to raise the concern and a call for possible action to adopt the superior license which protects and promotes the ideas if the OSC and not the sole interest of FSF. Thanks for the easy win point in the debate. Clearly OSL has been deemed by RH as the license preferred to promote, "achieves desired goals for free software" clause below. The migration is simple, all it takes is enough key people to convert their license for RTU to OSL and have a determine ruling from OpenSource.org that GPL is compatible to operate in an OSL environment but does not receive the benefits of OSL legal status and protection to the author. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 20:08, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. > > I don't think anyone says the GPL is a perfect license > > > What I find odd in you politics which stinks, is you and redhat are > > pumping OSL into new features which are not generally submitted to the > > standard base. I do not care, but it does look funny. > > Red Hat is using OSL for various new projects based on the fact that > lawyers and legal scholars think that the OSL is the better license to > be using and that it achieves desired goals for free software. The > kernel however is GPL and its kind of hard to change that. Certainly Red > Hat can't do that. > > OSL wasn't around when the kernel began or my guess is Linus would have > gone that way to avoid political baggage. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 19:33 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 19:46 ` Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan, Last time I checked, if there is a bug, you submit a report, and it is fixed or a solution to fix it is reviewed/accepted. BUGREPORT: GPLv2 is broken and leaves the kernel in a near unprotected state where authors/copyright holders must bare the cost to defend their works. FIX: Migration to OSL 1.1 with language to address compatiblity issues with GPLvN operating in an OSL enviroment. ACTION: Using the credits list as a principle test for initial contract for disclosing terms of migration. Come on, don't be a stick in the mud. This is Linux, the definition of doing it better and faster. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On 23 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mer, 2003-07-23 at 20:08, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. > > I don't think anyone says the GPL is a perfect license > > > What I find odd in you politics which stinks, is you and redhat are > > pumping OSL into new features which are not generally submitted to the > > standard base. I do not care, but it does look funny. > > Red Hat is using OSL for various new projects based on the fact that > lawyers and legal scholars think that the OSL is the better license to > be using and that it achieves desired goals for free software. The > kernel however is GPL and its kind of hard to change that. Certainly Red > Hat can't do that. > > OSL wasn't around when the kernel began or my guess is Linus would have > gone that way to avoid political baggage. > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 19:08 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox @ 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:32 ` Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 20:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. What you're forgetting is that the goal of the GPL is to promote freedom not prosecution. You don't do this via litigations, this way you only alienate everyone, but you don't win support for free software. The free software movement is a social movement not a legal movement. In court you only reach short term effects, but if people vote with their wallet you can achieve a lot more profound results. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz 2003-07-23 22:32 ` Andre Hedrick 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Roman, Freedom comes from keeping all of it free. Litigation is a means to prevent the blanket theift of today. You cleary do not get it. How do you plan to stop people from making changes to the kernel, packaging a binary kernel and selling it? Clearly these people do not give a crap about the lame license you believe. So who will defend the recovery of the content for the OSC? Your answer is the author. My answer is the author may not be able to afford. But it is all about freedom, what freaking MORON stopped the freedom with GPL_ONLY? Again you have never had your work stolen and needed to recover it for the OSC. Any of your poor bastards want to fund my legal attack to take a few companies to court for GPL violations? I did not think so. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. > > What you're forgetting is that the goal of the GPL is to promote freedom > not prosecution. You don't do this via litigations, this way you only > alienate everyone, but you don't win support for free software. > The free software movement is a social movement not a legal movement. In > court you only reach short term effects, but if people vote with their > wallet you can achieve a lot more profound results. > > bye, Roman > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 22:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > Freedom comes from keeping all of it free. > Litigation is a means to prevent the blanket theift of today. > You cleary do not get it. Litigation is not the only way, that's what you don't understand. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:40 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 22:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 23:02 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List I forgot ... Hey ESR johnny get your guns we are going hunting to enforce GPL cause litigation is not practical. Bye, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > Freedom comes from keeping all of it free. > > Litigation is a means to prevent the blanket theift of today. > > You cleary do not get it. > > Litigation is not the only way, that's what you don't understand. > > bye, Roman > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:35 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 23:02 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 23:08 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > I forgot ... Hey ESR johnny get your guns we are going hunting to enforce > GPL cause litigation is not practical. As this is getting offtopic, I only strongly advise you to read up about social movements. (Yes, you can even find them in the american history.) bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 23:02 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 23:08 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 23:33 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Roman: I strongly believe you do not care about the OSC. You have no desire to defend it. You have ideas of utopia (sp) and gemme another hit off the bong. I agree this thread is going no where and that nobody wants to ever enforce the rule to insure the ideas remain. So GPL violations for all, no one will enforce or stop grand theift. Lets all hold hands and sing and have good thoughts because thinking will result in karma, and that will solve it all. Bawhahaha! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > I forgot ... Hey ESR johnny get your guns we are going hunting to enforce > > GPL cause litigation is not practical. > > As this is getting offtopic, I only strongly advise you to read up about > social movements. (Yes, you can even find them in the american history.) > > bye, Roman > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 23:08 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 23:33 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 23:45 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > You have ideas of utopia (sp) and gemme another hit off the bong. > [..] > Lets all hold hands and sing and have good thoughts because thinking will > result in karma, and that will solve it all. If this is the only thing you can come up with, when you think about social movements, I really feel sorry for you. :( bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 23:33 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 23:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 0:14 ` dacin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 23:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Don't "FEEL" cause I do not give a damn about what people "FEEL". Don't "SHARE", cause it is usually followed by "FEELINGS". I do have an interest in what people "think", and can use for logical discussion. The moment anyone goes to "because I feel" or "just because I", they can no longer think. If you want to "SHARE" something, how about a "doughnut", but keep your feelings to yourself and express thoughts. Thoughts on how to protect and defend the ideas of the OSC are good. Your compasion subjected "on" me refusing to yield to your "feel good" crap, don't need it. Return to Sender. Later Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > You have ideas of utopia (sp) and gemme another hit off the bong. > > [..] > > Lets all hold hands and sing and have good thoughts because thinking will > > result in karma, and that will solve it all. > > If this is the only thing you can come up with, when you think about > social movements, I really feel sorry for you. :( > > bye, Roman > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 23:45 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-24 0:14 ` dacin 2003-07-24 0:23 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: dacin @ 2003-07-24 0:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick, linux-kernel Andre Hedrick wrote: >Don't "FEEL" cause I do not give a damn about what people "FEEL". >Don't "SHARE", cause it is usually followed by "FEELINGS". > >I do have an interest in what people "think", and can use for logical >discussion. > >The moment anyone goes to "because I feel" or "just because I", they can >no longer think. > And this is a thought in itself, umm would like to know, is there anything that can be expressed consciousely/un-consciousley without being a thought first. Guess my thought telling me that I am guessing that I am thinking about my thoughts driven by this thread for now :-) >If you want to "SHARE" something, how about a "doughnut", but keep your >feelings to yourself and express thoughts. Thoughts on how to protect and >defend the ideas of the OSC are good. Your compasion subjected "on" me >refusing to yield to your "feel good" crap, don't need it. Return to >Sender. > > > Hmm share or *satisfication* of the animal ego inside a breed known as human, who also act clumsy most of the times. dacodecz ==================================================================================== watching the unseen. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-24 0:14 ` dacin @ 2003-07-24 0:23 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-24 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dacin; +Cc: linux-kernel Just call me "John Galt"! Thanks for the riddle it was grand! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, dacin wrote: > Andre Hedrick wrote: > > >Don't "FEEL" cause I do not give a damn about what people "FEEL". > >Don't "SHARE", cause it is usually followed by "FEELINGS". > > > >I do have an interest in what people "think", and can use for logical > >discussion. > > > >The moment anyone goes to "because I feel" or "just because I", they can > >no longer think. > > > And this is a thought in itself, umm would like to know, is there > anything that can be expressed > consciousely/un-consciousley without being a thought first. Guess my > thought telling me that I am > guessing that I am thinking about my thoughts driven by this thread for > now :-) > > >If you want to "SHARE" something, how about a "doughnut", but keep your > >feelings to yourself and express thoughts. Thoughts on how to protect and > >defend the ideas of the OSC are good. Your compasion subjected "on" me > >refusing to yield to your "feel good" crap, don't need it. Return to > >Sender. > > > > > > > Hmm share or *satisfication* of the animal ego inside a breed known as > human, who also act clumsy most > of the times. > > > dacodecz > ==================================================================================== > watching the unseen. > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:40 ` Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz 2003-07-24 0:21 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-07-24 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick, Roman Zippel; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List > Freedom comes from keeping all of it free. All code released publically is free. The more code you release, the more freedom. You seem to think that how much freedom you have is based upon what percentage of code is free as opposed to how much free code there is. Nobody can reduce the amount of free code, so nobody can reduce your freedom. No matter how much code I write for which I don't give you the source, the amount of code for which you do have the source is not reduced. The more free code there is, the freer you are. The only thing that threatens your freedom is if someone makes free code unfree. How do they do that? If I add something and don't make it free, that doesn't reduce your freedom. It only fails to increase it. > Litigation is a means to prevent the blanket theift of today. > You cleary do not get it. The only thing a person can steal is what they themselves added. So no theft takes any of your freedom away. You are still free, no matter how many things that I produce I fail to give you. > How do you plan to stop people from making changes to the kernel, > packaging a binary kernel and selling it? Would I be any better off if they didn't make the changes in the first place? How can someone not giving me access to something they produced make me any less free than if those things didn't exist at all? Nobody can take your freedom away just by denying you something that they produced. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz @ 2003-07-24 0:21 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-24 0:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz; +Cc: Roman Zippel, Linux Kernel Mailing List David, I needed the laugh, thanks. Your one point about free becoming unfree is on task. You should have been more brief, but I enjoyed it. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Freedom comes from keeping all of it free. > > All code released publically is free. The more code you release, the more > freedom. > > You seem to think that how much freedom you have is based upon what > percentage of code is free as opposed to how much free code there is. Nobody > can reduce the amount of free code, so nobody can reduce your freedom. > > No matter how much code I write for which I don't give you the source, the > amount of code for which you do have the source is not reduced. The more > free code there is, the freer you are. The only thing that threatens your > freedom is if someone makes free code unfree. How do they do that? > > If I add something and don't make it free, that doesn't reduce your > freedom. It only fails to increase it. > > > Litigation is a means to prevent the blanket theift of today. > > You cleary do not get it. > > The only thing a person can steal is what they themselves added. So no > theft takes any of your freedom away. You are still free, no matter how many > things that I produce I fail to give you. > > > How do you plan to stop people from making changes to the kernel, > > packaging a binary kernel and selling it? > > Would I be any better off if they didn't make the changes in the first > place? How can someone not giving me access to something they produced make > me any less free than if those things didn't exist at all? > > Nobody can take your freedom away just by denying you something that they > produced. > > DS > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz 2003-07-24 0:21 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-07-24 14:01 ` Richard B. Johnson 2003-07-24 18:37 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 2 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Jesse Pollard @ 2003-07-24 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Schwartz, Andre Hedrick, Roman Zippel; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wednesday 23 July 2003 19:21, David Schwartz wrote: > > No matter how much code I write for which I don't give you the source, the > amount of code for which you do have the source is not reduced. The more > free code there is, the freer you are. The only thing that threatens your > freedom is if someone makes free code unfree. How do they do that? By claiming they wrote it first, supplying enough lawyers and court fees to put you out of existance. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard @ 2003-07-24 14:01 ` Richard B. Johnson 2003-07-24 18:37 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-07-24 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jesse Pollard Cc: David Schwartz, Andre Hedrick, Roman Zippel, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote: > On Wednesday 23 July 2003 19:21, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > No matter how much code I write for which I don't give you the source, the > > amount of code for which you do have the source is not reduced. The more > > free code there is, the freer you are. The only thing that threatens your > > freedom is if someone makes free code unfree. How do they do that? > > By claiming they wrote it first, supplying enough lawyers and court fees to > put you out of existance. > Or by just stealing it and selling it like "Flight Simulator" (1). Simple. If you have enough lawyers on your staff, you can steal anything. Nobody can touch you. (1) Flight Simulator was first written under CP/M for a VT-50 terminal my me. The source code as published by the PROGRAM EXCHANGE, my BBS System. When PCs became commonplace, I converted it to run on a PC and learned Intel x86 assembly in the process. The newer version(s) were published on the PROGRAM EXCHANGE BBS that I ran for about 20 years. Then when "Turbo Pascal" became available, it was adapted to interface with graphics and a Hercules graphics card. This work was done by myself and others. In the process, I learned Pascal. Eventually PCs had screen cards that did low-resolution graphics. Further refinements were made for graphics on these. Several of my PROGRAM EXCHANGE contributors wrote loadable area graphics and maps. When Microsoft released their first version of "Flight Simulator" they didn't even bother to change the name. Also, they apparently thought that putting it on self-booting disks would make it difficult to see what they copied. My flight dynamics kernel, that ran off the timer-tick, was copied verbatim. This is the basic state-machine that makes the software "fly". It had the dynamics of a Cessna 172, complete with the spiral instability, and the long-mode oscillations. It was difficult to fly because it flew like a real airplane, i.e., you reduce the power and the nose drops and the airplane accelerates. This is not intuitive. Who would think (but a real pilot) that reducing the power setting would make the speed increase? Eventually Microsoft "fixed" the flight dynamics, probably by writing their own. This made the program a mere toy that anybody could fly. So, they took a real simulator, with real flight dynamics and converted it to a toy. In the process, they made millions of dollars. Sounds like a good deal to me. All you need is lawyers. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* RE: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-07-24 14:01 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2003-07-24 18:37 ` David Schwartz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: David Schwartz @ 2003-07-24 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jesse Pollard; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List > On Wednesday 23 July 2003 19:21, David Schwartz wrote: > > No matter how much code I write for which I don't give you > > the source, the > > amount of code for which you do have the source is not reduced. The more > > free code there is, the freer you are. The only thing that > > threatens your > > freedom is if someone makes free code unfree. How do they do that? > By claiming they wrote it first, supplying enough lawyers and > court fees to > put you out of existance. Of course, that is certainly true. Someone can attempt, through the legal process, to stop you from using software you yourself wrote. Although I doubt any company would ever be that evil. ;) That is, by the way, one advantage of taking a printout of your code and mailing it to yourself in a sealed envelope or seeking a registered copyright. It at least provides proof that you had the code on the date you wrote it. There is one other benefit to a registered copyright on software that a lawyer recently mentioned to me. Suppose you're a company and have employees who write software. You really can't be 100% sure that the software they provide to you isn't stolen from someplace (and you sure as heck can't be sure someone can't claim it is). By seeking a registered copyright, you can argue that the registration provides constructive notice to anyone else that you are claiming copyright on that software. This *may* start the 3 year statue of limitations from the date or registration rather than the date they found out you had software they think is theirs. DS ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:32 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:46 ` Larry McVoy 1 sibling, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roman Zippel Cc: Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Roman, Lets apply your wallet issue. Business who use the products to solve a pain of theirs do not give a thought to the legality of the software inside the box. The builders of the box offer some legal comforts to their customers. So the fact these companies exist and exploit GPL and steal from the OSC, this is okay. Social ideas to promote lawlessness and allowing violations to continue unchallenged is why companies do it. So lets cheer Roman for the wisdom of letting it all be free and everyone can take from the pie and never give back. Later, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > > > GPL provides no means to enable the author/copyright holder to defend and > > recover legal fees occurred during discovery and litigation. > > What you're forgetting is that the goal of the GPL is to promote freedom > not prosecution. You don't do this via litigations, this way you only > alienate everyone, but you don't win support for free software. > The free software movement is a social movement not a legal movement. In > court you only reach short term effects, but if people vote with their > wallet you can achieve a lot more profound results. > > bye, Roman > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:32 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2003-07-23 22:46 ` Larry McVoy 2003-07-23 23:13 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 38+ messages in thread From: Larry McVoy @ 2003-07-23 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick Cc: Roman Zippel, Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:32:31PM -0700, Andre Hedrick wrote: > So lets cheer Roman for the wisdom of letting it all be free and everyone > can take from the pie and never give back. Roman forgets that he doesn't speak for everyone, he makes statements like "the GPL is all about ..." as if he was elected the leader of the free software world and everyone agrees with him. Some people people agree with him but a lot of people don't. Unfortunately, in these sorts of discussions, the sane people tend to stay out of it and the fruitcakes come crawling out of the woodwork to tell you that you are doing it wrong and that you just don't get it. Your procmail may set ye free, just use it. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 22:46 ` Larry McVoy @ 2003-07-23 23:13 ` Roman Zippel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Roman Zippel @ 2003-07-23 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Larry McVoy Cc: Andre Hedrick, Alan Cox, Martin Diehl, Adrian Bunk, Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, Linux Kernel Mailing List Hi, On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Larry McVoy wrote: > Roman forgets that he doesn't speak for everyone, he makes statements like > "the GPL is all about ..." as if he was elected the leader of the free > software world and everyone agrees with him. I voiced my opinion like everyone else, where you get this idea is completely unclear to me. > Some people people agree with > him but a lot of people don't. Unfortunately, in these sorts of discussions, > the sane people tend to stay out of it and the fruitcakes come crawling out > of the woodwork to tell you that you are doing it wrong and that you just > don't get it. I can give this compliment back to you. bye, Roman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
* Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd 2003-07-23 5:28 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2003-07-23 10:40 ` Adam Sampson 1 sibling, 0 replies; 38+ messages in thread From: Adam Sampson @ 2003-07-23 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: Adam J. Richter, andersen, jgarzik, linux-kernel Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> writes: > To bad people do not see the lameness of GPL and the superior > quality of OSL. >From a not-a-lawyer viewpoint, there's one major thing that concerns me about the OSL 1.1 (the text of which is available on opensource.org): If You distribute copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express and volitional assent of recipients to the terms of this License. This "click-wrap" requirement sounds like it would cause problems for mirror sites; we'd have to either make our users accept that there might be software licensed under the OSL somewhere on the site before browsing any of it -- which is ridiculous, since the vast majority of our mirrored software isn't under such a license -- or scan all software we mirror for OSL licenses and require acceptance on a per-file basis, which would be possible, but a reasonably large amount of development work, and annoying both for users and for other sites mirroring from us. In particular, how are we meant to enforce this for an FTP or rsync server? We can put "Downloading software under the terms of the OSL requires acceptance of the terms; logging in to this server indicates your acceptance of these terms" or something similar in our message-of-the-day, but that doesn't seem like "expressing assent" when we know full well that the majority of FTP users won't get shown the MOTD. Now, we could argue that just putting a notice in our terms and conditions saying that we might have OSL-licensed software would be a "reasonable effort", but there's no guarantee that the copyright owner would consider this reasonable, and it certainly doesn't seem compliant with the spirit of the license. (Essentially, this is the same problem that the GPL has with defining a "derivative work"; the OPL doesn't fix this problem either.) I also don't like the idea of having to do this for every future license that appears that also includes these terms. Otherwise, the license looks like a nice idea. But this clause, if it's intended to do what I think it is, would cause serious problems for the large number of mirror sites out there who carry free software. (The other concerns I've seen voiced about this license are the "External Deployment" section, which I'm quite happy with, and the validity of the "Jurisdiction" and "Attorneys' Fees" sections, which look like a nice idea that wouldn't actually be possible under some jurisdictions -- have a look in the archives of debian-legal for some more-informed discussion about this.) -- Adam Sampson <azz@us-lot.org> <http://azz.us-lot.org/> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 38+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-24 18:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 38+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2003-07-23 5:12 Promise SATA driver GPL'd Adam J. Richter 2003-07-23 5:28 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 9:08 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:12 ` Matthias Andree 2003-07-23 10:21 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 11:47 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 11:54 ` Wichert Akkerman 2003-07-23 22:22 ` On "any later version" in GPL [Was: Re: Promise SATA driver GPL'd] Horst von Brand 2003-07-23 10:37 ` Promise SATA driver GPL'd Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 10:29 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 10:51 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 11:43 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 12:17 ` Adrian Bunk 2003-07-23 12:32 ` Martin Diehl 2003-07-23 12:57 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 19:08 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:19 ` Alan Cox 2003-07-23 19:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 19:46 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 20:59 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 22:22 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:40 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 22:35 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 23:02 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 23:08 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 23:33 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 23:45 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 0:14 ` dacin 2003-07-24 0:23 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 0:21 ` David Schwartz 2003-07-24 0:21 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-24 13:23 ` Jesse Pollard 2003-07-24 14:01 ` Richard B. Johnson 2003-07-24 18:37 ` David Schwartz 2003-07-23 22:32 ` Andre Hedrick 2003-07-23 22:46 ` Larry McVoy 2003-07-23 23:13 ` Roman Zippel 2003-07-23 10:40 ` Adam Sampson
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.