linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-27 17:59 James Bottomley
  2003-04-29 14:01 ` Timothy Miller
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 147+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2003-04-27 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: linux-kernel


> There is much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth over the fact that
> the evil corporations are locking things up with DRM as well as various
> laws like the DMCA.  People talk about their "rights" being violated,
> about how awful this all is, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up
> are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining
> are the people who got those things, illegally, for free.  There seems
> to be a wide spread feeling that whenever anything desirable comes along
> it is OK to take it if you want it.  Napster is a good example.  I don't
> like the record companies any better than anyone else but they do own
> the material and you either respect the rules or the record companies
> will lock it up and force you to respect the rules.

I think you're overlooking a fundamental principle of law here:
Intellectual "property" is intangible.  In particular, it is *not*
subject to the concept of ownership.  A creator of an idea or expression
has no legal right to the ownership of the same.  What they do have is a
time limited, assignable, government granted right to prevent others
from profiting by that invention or expression.

The rights pertaining to creations of the intellect are fundamentally
weaker than physical property rights, and here's why.  Quoting from the
US Constitution, article I section 8:

"The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and
useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries"

The purpose of these limited rights is to promote the progress of
science and useful arts.  Thus, the copyright or patent owner is
fundamentally restricted in the limitations they may impose on the user
of their creation.  The origins of the concepts of reverse engineering
and copyright fair use all flow from this.

If you want to make an intellectual contribution to the body of
knowledge you do so under these terms or not at all.

> The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing
> factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts.  This community
> thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful.

I disagree.  The open source community, to me at least, appears to be
the closest thing to the ideal set down in the constitution.  I own the
copyright, you may see my source and improve upon it.

I disagree that the open source community "copies" anything it finds
useful.  I might agree that it improves upon something it finds useful,
but that, again, is a lawful purpose.

As far as the DMCA goes, many people think it oversteps the
constitutional boundary by giving to IP holders rights they are
forbidden from possessing, and hence they come to talk about "ownership
of intellectual contributions" rather than "my limited right to profit
by my invention"...only time and the courts will tell.

James



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-05-01 23:40 Chuck Ebbert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 147+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Ebbert @ 2003-05-01 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Scott McDermott; +Cc: linux-kernel

Scott McDermott wrote:

>>  They only leaked information when you edited documents while running
>>  the word processor on a toy OS that didn't zero newly allocated
>>  memory...
>
> um pardon, but does your libc zero newly allocated memory?

 I don't know about libc, but my kernels do.  All of them...

> and why should it, praytell? force a performance hit on everyone, when
> it could just be left to the application to do it?

  It is a security requirement.  Applications cannot be trusted.

------
 Chuck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-05-01 19:06 Chuck Ebbert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 147+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Ebbert @ 2003-05-01 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gerhard Mack; +Cc: linux-kernel

Gerhard Mack wrote:

> Older versions of word used to embed random bits of memory into the doc
> file that word couldn't see.

  They only leaked information when you edited documents while running
the word processor on a toy OS that didn't zero newly allocated memory...
------
 Chuck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-05-01  3:16 Tom Lord
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 147+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lord @ 2003-05-01  3:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel



	> The thread was about corporations and powers which are
	> orders and orders of magnitude more powerful than we will
	> ever be.

It was also about innovation and R&D (or the lack thereof) in the free
software and open source communities, and the lack of business models
that seek to address that.  Kudos to you for taking the crap for
talking openly about that lack of innovation instead of trying to
handwave it away.   Some of us, at least, share your observations and
think you are right on the money.


	> But since you insist on harping on BK, I get what you are
	> saying, but we are cranking out code faster than you can
	> type.  I have an engineer here who has over 100 active BK
	> repositories, just that one person can code circles around
	> all the BK cloners stacked up and then some.  

Now, there: be careful.   I can only hope/guess that the code you guys
are cranking moves well beyond just basic revision control and into a
complete software development pipeline infrastructure.   It's no
virtue of a revision control system that it takes a lot of code to
implement it or countless revisions to get it right.


	> We're not worried that the BK cloners are going to keep up.

Yeah -- cloning is dumb.  I think that a radically different approach
(specifically, dare I say it, arch) is better.   No, arch isn't ready
for LK work.   I won't pretend for a minute that it is.   I was
shocked and amused to learn that last year somebody actually tried it
for that purpose.

But what's the delta between where arch's at, and an arch that's great
for something the scale of LK?  It's not that huge, guy, and if I
weren't so broke -- you'd have something to worry about there, IMHO.

But I am broke, and that just reinforces your recurrent theme about
business realities vs. free software R&D.   You Are Right.



	> Look at Subversion, that's a funded project, serious
	> programmers (good ones), open source, etc.  They admit that
	> they can't do what BK can and we started more or less at the
	> same time

If you ask me, they're totally messed up.   They aren't passionate
about revision control or source management generally.   The paid ones
seem to be passionate about Collabnet's short-term business plans and
putting on a public project face that fits the mythology of free
software success.   I'm sorry -- that's completely rude.  Hopefully it
won't land me with a subpoena or anything.   But really, I have yet to
see any evidence to the contrary, and plenty supporting it.
It's sad, really, because the core idea -- a txnal file system db --
is a totally winning direction.


	> It's absolutely true that I'm pissed off at the kernel
	> people looking at cloning BK.  Why shouldn't I be?  

Because, combined with their inevitable failure, it's just free
publicity.


	> Yeah, I'm pissed.  If you were me you would be livid.  It
	> sucks to try and help and be distrusted and crapped on.

It's probably comparably heartbreaking to try and help, and _not_
break any basic licensing precepts of the "community" -- and get
crapped on anyway.  It's really lost on me, at this point, why anybody
thinks it's a good idea to _volunteer_ for commercially significant
free software projects.  In your case, I can sort of see: if nothing
else, you get some marketing and testing and use cases to study.  I'd
guess you'd say "not nearly enough to justify the costs" -- but still,
you have _some_ business reason for spending salary on this, at least
for now.


	> We've had 5 years of "you're just evil corporate bastards"

There are worse ones.

	> and so far we have never done a single thing to deserve
	> that.  

Eh.   It's just flames and they happen both ways.  I think you're
exaggerating there.   But, yeah, when you start saying "this is really
exasperating," a "communal" response of "dog pile on the rabbit" is 
not the right thing.


	> As one open source luminary said "It will take them 5 years
	> to catch up to where you were last year and unless you guys
	> are idiots you'll be more than 5 years ahead of them then".

It will take that long, but only because of the absence of real R&D
spending in the free software world.  I could seal your fate in a year
given <$2M.  (Which means that I can't do it in a year and pretty
much have to give up trying.)  ("Seal your fate" doesn't mean match
your features or clone -- just get enough leverage to start taking
away project wins.)


	> Exactly.  Nobody here is sitting back and resting, we think
	> what we have is garbage and have a clear vision as to how to
	> make it be great.  We're doing that.  If the copiers can do
	> better, that's very cool, but we'll probably respond by
	> hiring them if they are really that good, we're always
	> looking for people as passionate as we are about this stuff.

I'm available, and I'm looking to get out of this free software
"community" :-)

-t


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-30 18:39 Chuck Ebbert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 147+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Ebbert @ 2003-04-30 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List

Larry McVoy wrote:

.> If you were a powerful
.> corporation, you might lobby Congress for more laws to protect your 
.> works, you might start a "Trusted Computing" initiative to make sure
.> that the data was all encrypted so that only your programs could access
.> that data, etc.

  So you are saying that the whole TCPA/Palladium thing is a sham,
designed so that only one company's products can be used to access
DRM-managed media?  That's what I thought from day one...

  What's stopping an open-source reimplementation?  Or keeping Sony and
partners from creating a "DRM Linux" for their embedded OS?

------
 Chuck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Re: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-30 16:21 Chuck Ebbert
  2003-04-30 17:24 ` Larry McVoy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 147+ messages in thread
From: Chuck Ebbert @ 2003-04-30 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List

Larry McVoy wrote:

.> Your answer has to be interesting because it seems to me that they are
.> doing it to protect their products, their product is sometimes content,
.> sometimes programs, sometimes both.  An answer which says that open source
.> is not part of the cause also says that open source is irrelevant.

  You are trying to make the case that open source developers are in the
same group as those who illegally download copyrighted media, but you
are wrong.  Taking ideas and concepts from the "daemon book" or "The
Design of OS/2" or whatever and putting them in Linux is not a crime,
nor is buying a program and trying to clone its functionality.  Copying
the source or object code is something entirely different.

-------
 Chuck
------
 Chuck

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-30 15:53 Downing, Thomas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 147+ messages in thread
From: Downing, Thomas @ 2003-04-30 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]

[snip] (because I agree almost completly with all of it.)

>> My A produces your B; I don't like B, so I won't A. This seems to be
>> your solution. 
>
> I'm not sure I've proposed a solution, I doubt it.  I don't have a
solution,
> I'm trying to shine a light on what I see as a problem.  I was hoping that
> you had a solution.

Okay, fair enough.  I don't have a silver bullet.  I do have some ideas -
but only ones obvious to anyone.

In the short term, everything that can be done to thwart the abuse of DRM
and other technological measures, must be done.  DeCSS (lovely example)
shows us this.  Nominally, MPAA won that battle.  Practically, they lost;
anyone can use Linux to watch DVD's anywhere in the world.  Hence my
dislike of the cause-and-effect argument.

In the short term, everything that can be done to thwart legal abuse of
consumer rights must be done.  This is in many ways harder.  Political
activism is _not_ easy; as many of us on lkml have found out at first
hand, and often at greater or lesser personal cost.  The current battle
against DMCA is _not_ going well.

Anything that can be done to encourage distribution (for profit) of
entertainment content through channels other than MPAA/RIAA sould be
done.  The internet holds this promise.  If DRM becomes law in the
way the entertainment industry wants, this will be illegal.  Best
way to fight that eventuality is to have a healthy industry already
in place.

The to points on which the issues will hang are hardware and law.  If
hardware vendors decide to adopt the path that the media industry
(and certain members of the software industry) would like, we have
a big problem, and only legal and market forces can change that.  At
this time, I don't see how 'open hardware' is a practical concept if
current vendors stop making it.  I don't think market force against
total media control is likely to be measurable - unless alternatives
are just as easy to use, from the _mass_ market point of view.

If hardware vendors continue to make 'open hardware' the only hurdle
is legal.  But when the opposition has the sort of clout (read, money)
that it has, this is one hell of a big hurdle.

This whole thing is being driven by the US.  This leads to the long
term.  They will fail - problem is just how long will it be before
they do fail.  It could be quite some time.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-30 14:52 Downing, Thomas
  2003-04-30 15:20 ` Larry McVoy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 147+ messages in thread
From: Downing, Thomas @ 2003-04-30 14:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]

>On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 09:11:57AM -0400, Downing, Thomas wrote:
>> > The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning.  You will respond
>> > with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond
>> > with even more clever hacks to stop you.  They have both more resources
>> > and more at stake so they will win.
>> 
>> The point is that they don't (with a couple of clever and amusing 
>> exceptions) respond with "even more clever hacks", they respond with
>> things like DMCA.  This is also the danger of the motives behind DRM;
>> just pass a law making it a felony to produce, use, etc. hardware which
>> does _not_ enforce corporate controlled DRM.
>> 
>> This is why in my first post on this topic I said it was a political
>> issue, not a technical one.
>> 
>> > The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the
corporations
>> > will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby
the
>> > government to get the laws they want and build the technology they
need.
>> > The more you push back the more locked up things will become.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this may very well prove to be true.  But laying it at the
>> door of the open source community (or even piracy other than commercial
>> piracy, viz. China) is buying into the FUD that MPAA and RIAA spew.
>> Remember, that when the courts asked the MPAA to produce _any_ evidence
>> of harm from DeCSS, they were unable to produce _anything_.
>
> I'm probably the world's worst communicator because you're right at the
> edge of getting the point and then it gets missed again.  I think you're
> outraged thinking that I'm saying the open source guys are all bad people
> or whatever.  I'm not trying to make a bad/good argument, I'm trying to
> make a cause and effect argument.

No, I don't think you are 'the world's worst communicator'.  First, I was
not alone in understanding you to say that the open source community as
a class were prone to theft.  Now as to cause and effect, we may
disagree on causes (and as to that, did you here of what Nasrudin said
when the thief fell on him? - he fell off the wall, _my_ collar bone
is broken,) but the effect we do agree on.

> Take everything that I said which is not an action on the part of the
> corporations and just call it A.  Ignore what A is or even if A exists
> or is true, whatever.  Concentrate on what I claim to be the reaction.
> I tried to make the case that A is the cause, you got mad, the fact that
> the reaction is the problem is lost in the anger.
>
> Your post shows that you think that the reaction is bad and you even say
> that the reaction is likely.  You vigourously disagree with my conclusions
> as to why the reaction is happening, I see that.  OK, so let's try it
> with a question rather than a statement: why are things like the DMCA and
> DRM happening?  It isn't the open source guys pushing those, obviously,
> it's the corporations.  So why are they doing it?
> 
> Your answer has to be interesting because it seems to me that they are
> doing it to protect their products, their product is sometimes content,
> sometimes programs, sometimes both.  An answer which says that open source
> is not part of the cause also says that open source is irrelevant.

My A produces your B; I don't like B, so I won't A. This seems to be
your solution. Such simple reasoning is not always correct. For an example
we could only hope to emulate, Ghandi.  Second, what is driving DRM
and DMCA is profits, and MPAA and RIAA see profits as at a maximum in
a pay-per-view world.

If this is not what you are saying, what do you see as a solution?
Or is it that you don't see any problems with what is being done with
DRM and DMCA?

> You can't be both a force and not a force.

I have no interest in being a force.  I hope I can find the courage not
to submit to force.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* RE: Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!]
@ 2003-04-30 13:11 Downing, Thomas
  2003-04-30 13:59 ` Larry McVoy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 147+ messages in thread
From: Downing, Thomas @ 2003-04-30 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy, Linux Kernel Mailing List

----Original Message-----
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:lm@bitmover.com]


> What seems to be forgotten is that the people who are locking things up
> are the people who own those things and the people who are complaining
> are the people who got those things, illegally, for free.

That is an unfairly sweeping statement.  I complain, I purchase; I am
not alone in this.

Second, in the context of the USA, there are two long established
principals that balance copyright - fair use and first point of sale.
The problem with the "bad use of DRM" is that the vendors (who _are_
the owners) of copyright material want to eliminate consumer rights
under these to principles as well.

> The open source community, in my opinion, is certainly a contributing
> factor in the emergence of the DMCA and DRM efforts.  This community
> thinks it is perfectly acceptable to copy anything that they find useful.
> Take a look at some of the recent BK flamewars and over and over you
> will see people saying "we'll clone it".   That's not unique to BK,
> it's the same with anything else which is viewed as useful.  And nobody
> sees anything wrong with that, or copying music, whatever.  "If it's
> useful, take it" is the attitude.

First, in many countries, (including USA,) producing a work-alike
alternative has been defended by the courts, as long as such issues as
patent violations are not shown to have occured.

Second, there is _no_ parallel between producing a clone of BK and
making illegal copies of copyrighted material.

> This problem is pervasive, it's not just a handful of people.  Upon the
> advice of several of the leading kernel developers, I contacted Pavel's
> boss at SuSE and said "how about you nudge Pavel onto something more
> productive" and he said that he couldn't control Pavel.  That's nonsense
> and everyone knows that.  If one of my employees were doing something
> like that, it would be trivial to say "choose between your job and that".
> But Garloff just shrugged it off as not his problem.

That's enough to guarentee that my company _never_ uses BK.

> Corporations are certainly watching things like our efforts with
> BitKeeper, as well as the other companies who are trying to play nice
> with the open source world.  What are they learning?  That if you don't
> lock it up, the open source world has no conscience, no respect, and will
> steal anything that isn't locked down.

Examples? (other than BK ;-)

> Show me a single example of the community going "no, we can't take that,
> someone else did all the work to produce it, we didn't".

You certainly can find patent violations by the score out there in the
open source world - probably copyright violations as well.  But how many
are there in what might be called 'mainstream' OS; such as the Linux
kernel tree, XFree86, Gnome, KDE, Apache, etc.?  And do not confuse an
independently produced work-alike with theft of IP.

> The DMCA, DRM, all that stuff is just the beginning.  You will respond
> with all sorts of clever hacks to get around it and they will respond
> with even more clever hacks to stop you.  They have both more resources
> and more at stake so they will win.

The point is that they don't (with a couple of clever and amusing 
exceptions) respond with "even more clever hacks", they respond with
things like DMCA.  This is also the danger of the motives behind DRM;
just pass a law making it a felony to produce, use, etc. hardware which
does _not_ enforce corporate controlled DRM.

This is why in my first post on this topic I said it was a political
issue, not a technical one.

> The depressing thing is that it is so obvious to me that the corporations
> will win, they will protect themselves, they have the money to lobby the
> government to get the laws they want and build the technology they need.
> The more you push back the more locked up things will become.

Unfortunately, this may very well prove to be true.  But laying it at the
door of the open source community (or even piracy other than commercial
piracy, viz. China) is buying into the FUD that MPAA and RIAA spew.
Remember, that when the courts asked the MPAA to produce _any_ evidence
of harm from DeCSS, they were unable to produce _anything_.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread
* Flame Linus to a crisp!
@ 2003-04-24  3:59 Linus Torvalds
  2003-04-24  8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 147+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2003-04-24  3:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kernel Mailing List


Ok, 
 there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to 
just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my 
asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable.

  I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux!

There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on...

I've had some private discussions with various people about this already,
and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way
to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by
some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it.

In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software
patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like
it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". 

And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM
myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I
refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for
whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily
personally approve of.

The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't
limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just
another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have
no ideals.

[ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly
  better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other 
  people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer 
  who wants to make the best OS possible. ]

In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself
indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the
tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came
that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a
binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one
behind it, and that _you_ trust it.

And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can
disallow anybody else doing so.

Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the 
first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by 
refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) 
is required too.

But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something,
and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the
scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like
that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on
the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of
the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license.

That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, 
because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act 
of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure 
that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done.

I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your
kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't
see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers.

Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end 
I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it.

Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private
keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build
process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys
without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have
been part of the kernel build itself.

So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is
applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one
is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that
such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel).

			Linus


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 147+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-09 23:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 147+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-04-27 17:59 Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] James Bottomley
2003-04-29 14:01 ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-29 16:39   ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-04-29 17:38     ` James Bottomley
2003-04-30  9:43       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-29 23:40   ` Robert White
2003-04-30  1:34     ` Rik van Riel
2003-04-30 10:03       ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-30 20:37       ` Robert White
2003-04-30 20:59         ` David Schwartz
2003-05-01  9:03           ` Jamie Lokier
2003-05-01 19:49             ` David Schwartz
2003-05-01 20:27               ` Robert White
2003-05-01 23:08                 ` David Schwartz
2003-05-02  0:54                   ` Robert White
2003-05-02  3:10                     ` David Schwartz
2003-05-02  3:34                       ` David Schwartz
2003-05-02 13:43                       ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-04-30 20:48       ` David Schwartz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-05-01 23:40 Chuck Ebbert
2003-05-01 19:06 Chuck Ebbert
2003-05-01  3:16 Tom Lord
2003-04-30 18:39 Chuck Ebbert
2003-04-30 16:21 Chuck Ebbert
2003-04-30 17:24 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-30 15:53 Downing, Thomas
2003-04-30 14:52 Downing, Thomas
2003-04-30 15:20 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-30 15:55   ` Jeff Randall
2003-05-01 12:43     ` Jesse Pollard
2003-04-30 18:19   ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-30 19:20     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-04-30 19:41       ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-30 19:53         ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2003-04-30 19:55         ` viro
2003-04-30 20:09           ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-30 18:58   ` Edgar Toernig
2003-04-30 22:43   ` Paul Mackerras
2003-05-01  1:03     ` Larry McVoy
2003-05-01 12:27       ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-05-01 13:11       ` Jesse Pollard
2003-05-01 17:40       ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-04-30 13:11 Downing, Thomas
2003-04-30 13:59 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-30 14:49   ` Jesse Pollard
2003-04-30 16:01   ` Giuliano Pochini
2003-04-30 16:53   ` Dax Kelson
2003-04-30 17:21     ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-30 17:45       ` Jim Penny
2003-04-30 19:09       ` Balram Adlakha
2003-04-30 19:58       ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-05-01  2:20         ` Larry McVoy
2003-05-01  3:39           ` Nicolas Pitre
2003-05-09 11:04           ` Pavel Machek
2003-05-09 23:17             ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-30 20:00       ` Dax Kelson
2003-05-01 11:44         ` David S. Miller
2003-05-02 19:00           ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-05-02 23:10             ` David S. Miller
2003-05-03 19:25               ` Larry McVoy
2003-05-06 11:25               ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-05-06 12:13                 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-09 10:59           ` Pavel Machek
2003-05-01 12:09       ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-05-01 18:01         ` Gerhard Mack
2003-04-24  3:59 Flame Linus to a crisp! Linus Torvalds
2003-04-24  8:37 ` Andreas Jellinghaus
2003-04-24  8:59   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-24 15:37     ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-24 18:35       ` Alan Cox
2003-04-24 22:29         ` Werner Almesberger
2003-04-27 14:21           ` Matthias Andree
2003-04-27 16:59             ` Why DRM exists [was Re: Flame Linus to a crisp!] Larry McVoy
2003-04-27 17:04               ` Ben Collins
2003-04-27 17:34               ` Michael Buesch
2003-04-27 18:41                 ` Henrik Persson
2003-04-27 17:35               ` Måns Rullgård
2003-04-27 17:49                 ` Mirar
2003-04-27 23:15                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-04-27 17:59                 ` Michael Buesch
2003-04-27 21:28                 ` Alan Cox
2003-04-28  1:48                 ` rmoser
2003-04-28  9:05                   ` Måns Rullgård
2003-04-27 18:07               ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2003-04-27 18:35               ` Chris Adams
2003-04-27 18:50                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-27 19:11                   ` Davide Libenzi
2003-04-27 20:13                   ` Frank van Maarseveen
2003-04-27 20:34                   ` walt
2003-04-27 21:26                   ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 22:07                   ` Ross Vandegrift
2003-04-27 22:32                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-27 22:05                       ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 23:28                         ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28  0:06                           ` Ross Vandegrift
2003-04-28 11:03                           ` Alan Cox
2003-04-29 18:06                           ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-28  9:06                       ` Eric W. Biederman
2003-04-28 14:55                       ` Michael Buesch
2003-04-28 20:04                       ` Matthias Schniedermeyer
2003-04-28 20:18                         ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28 20:22                           ` Chris Adams
2003-04-28 21:24                             ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28 21:40                               ` Roman Zippel
2003-04-28 22:13                               ` Alan Cox
2003-04-28 22:16                           ` Alan Cox
2003-04-29  0:09                             ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-29  4:07                               ` Dax Kelson
2003-04-29  5:08                                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-29 16:40                                 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-04-29 21:45                                   ` Helge Hafting
2003-04-30  9:58                                   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-30 15:06                                     ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-04-29  5:59                               ` Theodore Ts'o
2003-04-29 16:41                                 ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-04-29 14:35                               ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 22:34                   ` Matthias Andree
2003-04-27 22:51                   ` Matthew Kirkwood
2003-04-27 23:53                     ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28  0:00                       ` rmoser
     [not found]                         ` <20030428001001.GP23068@work.bitmover.com>
2003-04-28  0:19                           ` rmoser
2003-04-28  0:37                             ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-28  0:40                               ` rmoser
2003-04-28 11:38                   ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-04-29 14:21                   ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-29 14:27                     ` Henrik Persson
2003-04-29 19:56                       ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-29 20:35                         ` Henrik Persson
2003-04-30  8:39                     ` Jamie Lokier
2003-04-27 18:47               ` William Lee Irwin III
2003-04-27 18:56               ` Werner Almesberger
2003-04-27 19:20               ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-04-27 21:30               ` Jon Portnoy
2003-04-27 21:32               ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 22:36                 ` Larry McVoy
2003-04-27 21:56                   ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 23:08                     ` Matthew Kirkwood
2003-04-27 22:16                       ` Alan Cox
2003-04-27 23:35                   ` Matthias Andree
2003-04-27 22:07               ` Matthias Andree
2003-04-28  0:36               ` Scott Robert Ladd
2003-04-28  9:57               ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-05-06 15:58                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-05-07 14:44                   ` Stephan von Krawczynski
2003-05-07 14:28                     ` Alan Cox
2003-05-07 21:40                     ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-05-07 22:16                       ` Alan Cox
2003-05-08  0:33                       ` Kurt Wall
2003-04-28 11:26               ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2003-05-06 15:59                 ` Henning P. Schmiedehausen
2003-04-28 22:50               ` Timothy Miller
2003-04-29 14:46               ` Jeffrey Souza
2003-04-29 15:16                 ` venom
2003-04-30  9:35                 ` Jamie Lokier

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).