Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
and you have something of value, you are attacked.
I have enjoyed begin called everything from a turncoat, backstabber,
cheater, liar, theif, weasle.
I guess I should not have said anything, and behaved like the rest.
You know the embedded, the appliance, etc ... resellers who we all know
close up the code and ship for commerial reasons. Funny how they can do
it and nobody cares or they hide with a grin screaming NIMBY NIMBY.
Everyone is doing it and everyone looks away.
Best of all some of the worst name callers are the ones who use the code I
wrote to enable them to make money. Yet if you have something which does
not exist in the kernel and you adopt an API to use kernel calls, you get
branded and hated.
It could not have happened to a nicer loser, "fill in the blank" ...
Well you all have gotten all kinds of goodie for free, and I just want to
keep one of my pieces of hard work that was created during the time I was
booted out.
Well I was thinking of giving part of it to the community after I
recovered my costs of development, now I think not.
At least I have the integrity to state clearly my intentions, while the
rest hide and cower in corners. This reminds me of a bucket of crabs.
Well I really wanted to use every dirty word in the book, but it is not
worth it.
I will plan to put "linux-ide.org" and "linuxdiskcert.org" up for sale.
Additionally I will try to arrange for a legal transfer of the NDA's
attached to "Linux ATA Development" to the individual or group who wish to
purchase the access, pays all legal fees/work to to complete the transaction.
I wisely attached any and all NDA's to the fore mentioned organization.
If you are interested, please contact me offline.
Please also have the means to purchase the information to be transferred
which is not covered by any of the NDA's. This will include various
pieces of IP which was scheduled to be transfered to the kernel, but now
will only be for sale as an entire package.
The transaction for purchase will be executed via a wire transfer of funds
to a specified account, once cleared it you will receive a manifest.
regards,
-ah
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:12:29AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> and you have something of value, you are attacked.
>
I think you're taking the words of a few extremists a little too personal.
Judging from the responses I've seen on the threads Hell.Surfers has forked
the majority of the kernel hackers do not agree with the more offensive
"free software or die" crowd. Your efforts are appreciated also by those of
us who know better than to get into a flamewar with zealots. You don't see
our posts because we don't argue when the logic will be ignored.
I hope you change your mind, but if not - thanks for your contributions.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
#cooker = moderated Mandrake Cooker
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:12:29AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> and you have something of value, you are attacked.
> I have enjoyed begin called everything from a turncoat, backstabber,
> cheater, liar, theif, weasle.
[(over?)reaction trimmed]
Any chance we could all just get along?
Bill
--On Saturday, January 04, 2003 06:12:29 -0800 Andre Hedrick
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> and you have something of value, you are attacked.
>
> I have enjoyed begin called everything from a turncoat, backstabber,
> cheater, liar, theif, weasle.
>
> I guess I should not have said anything, and behaved like the rest.
>
> You know the embedded, the appliance, etc ... resellers who we all know
> close up the code and ship for commerial reasons. Funny how they can do
> it and nobody cares or they hide with a grin screaming NIMBY NIMBY.
> Everyone is doing it and everyone looks away.
You know, people often only look at things in front of their noses. So
people notice ATA and video drivers because they have the hardware.
Whereas, do you really know what is going on inside some appliance? And on
this list is definitely in front of the nose.
> Best of all some of the worst name callers are the ones who use the code I
> wrote to enable them to make money. Yet if you have something which does
> not exist in the kernel and you adopt an API to use kernel calls, you get
> branded and hated.
Guys, you know who you are. Apologise. Please?
You know that this kind of thing just makes the community and its goals
weaker. All its varied goals. Freedom, zealatrous, pragmatic,
intellectual, business in the presence of freedom, even just business that
isn't a huge corporate. Whatever.
No-one is served by alienating people, except perhaps the corporate
hegemony, and that indirectly.
> It could not have happened to a nicer loser, "fill in the blank" ...
>
> Well you all have gotten all kinds of goodie for free, and I just want to
> keep one of my pieces of hard work that was created during the time I was
> booted out.
>
> Well I was thinking of giving part of it to the community after I
> recovered my costs of development, now I think not.
>
> At least I have the integrity to state clearly my intentions, while the
> rest hide and cower in corners. This reminds me of a bucket of crabs.
Andre was not trolling. Really.
Andre, I hope you change your mind.
> Well I really wanted to use every dirty word in the book, but it is not
> worth it.
>
> I will plan to put "linux-ide.org" and "linuxdiskcert.org" up for sale.
> Additionally I will try to arrange for a legal transfer of the NDA's
> attached to "Linux ATA Development" to the individual or group who wish to
> purchase the access, pays all legal fees/work to to complete the
> transaction. I wisely attached any and all NDA's to the fore mentioned
> organization.
>
> If you are interested, please contact me offline.
> Please also have the means to purchase the information to be transferred
> which is not covered by any of the NDA's. This will include various
> pieces of IP which was scheduled to be transfered to the kernel, but now
> will only be for sale as an entire package.
>
> The transaction for purchase will be executed via a wire transfer of funds
> to a specified account, once cleared it you will receive a manifest.
>
> regards,
>
> -ah
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> and you have something of value, you are attacked.
Attacked by (mostly) a bunch of wankers who don't seem to do much
useful themselves. People who do useful work once in a while know
how much effort you are putting into Linux drivers and appreciate
the work you're doing.
> Well you all have gotten all kinds of goodie for free,
And I thank you for that.
> Well I was thinking of giving part of it to the community after I
> recovered my costs of development, now I think not.
That's a real shame. I like your business model of recovering the
development costs before releasing the software since it's a way
to fund your work on the kernel pretty much full-time, which seems
to have resulted in really good free drivers.
To be honest I don't understand why people are complaining about
the fact that your model keeps some drivers closed for 18 months,
while a completely free model wouldn't even start development of
the drivers for 18 months, until after the hardware became generally
available.
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://guru.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
Andre, are you sure you didn't mean to post this April 1? Unfortunately
I think not, and so this marks a truly sad day for every current and
future Linux user. One of my favorite past times is programming. I
guess I read the linux-kernel daily because it's like reading from the
book of Programming God's. I have such great respect for you and so
many others here. There is only so much whining a person can take, I
understand that. I assume you do this because you enjoy doing it.
Please don't listen to the whiner's; they don't speak for those of us
that really care. I know you don't know me, and I rarely post here
(because I have nothing to contribute usually), but I am someone that
has truly appreciated the work you've done.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Hedrick
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 8:12 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Honest does not pay here ...
Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
and you have something of value, you are attacked.
I have enjoyed begin called everything from a turncoat, backstabber,
cheater, liar, theif, weasle.
I guess I should not have said anything, and behaved like the rest.
You know the embedded, the appliance, etc ... resellers who we all know
close up the code and ship for commerial reasons. Funny how they can do
it and nobody cares or they hide with a grin screaming NIMBY NIMBY.
Everyone is doing it and everyone looks away.
Best of all some of the worst name callers are the ones who use the code
I
wrote to enable them to make money. Yet if you have something which
does
not exist in the kernel and you adopt an API to use kernel calls, you
get
branded and hated.
It could not have happened to a nicer loser, "fill in the blank" ...
Well you all have gotten all kinds of goodie for free, and I just want
to
keep one of my pieces of hard work that was created during the time I
was
booted out.
Well I was thinking of giving part of it to the community after I
recovered my costs of development, now I think not.
At least I have the integrity to state clearly my intentions, while the
rest hide and cower in corners. This reminds me of a bucket of crabs.
Well I really wanted to use every dirty word in the book, but it is not
worth it.
I will plan to put "linux-ide.org" and "linuxdiskcert.org" up for sale.
Additionally I will try to arrange for a legal transfer of the NDA's
attached to "Linux ATA Development" to the individual or group who wish
to
purchase the access, pays all legal fees/work to to complete the
transaction.
I wisely attached any and all NDA's to the fore mentioned organization.
If you are interested, please contact me offline.
Please also have the means to purchase the information to be transferred
which is not covered by any of the NDA's. This will include various
pieces of IP which was scheduled to be transfered to the kernel, but now
will only be for sale as an entire package.
The transaction for purchase will be executed via a wire transfer of
funds
to a specified account, once cleared it you will receive a manifest.
regards,
-ah
dear mr. hedrick,
i would like to _formally_ apologize for the flames you have received
from this list. please understand that the opinions you received in
those flames are not the opinions of most. _please_ keep up the
great work.
billy
=====
"there's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad...
and there it goes..." -bobby
I believe that the illegality of proprietary kernel modules
has resulting in more GPL-compatible kernel code than without such
a restriction.
Perhaps more people would initially write contributions in the
absense of such a restriction, but my experience has been that, given
that choice, enough contributors eventually evolve their policies to
something not sufficiently free that there is less in total to build
on, and the net result is that software does not advance in the long
term as quickly as with something like the GPL. That is one reason
why this Berkeley alumnus decided to bet on Linux rather than BSD back
in 1992. It's a complex empirical question. I believe that copying
conditions have been *one* of the determining factors in adoption of
Linux versus Berkeley Software Distribution (and I'm not a BSD
detractor; I'd like to see Linux distributions that could boot dual
boot a BSD kernel with Linux-compatible system calls, but I digress).
This brings me to my suggestion for how you could legally
accomplish what you're trying to do with only modest change in your
procedures. You could do your proprietary work on BSD and port any
GPL-compatible stuff that you want to release to Linux. I expect the
BSD people would probably welcome you and it might even improve
communication and reduce duplication of effort between BSD and Linux
camps.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
It seems you are very well regarded by those that matter, Andre.
And out voted, so pipe down and get back to work. (Please?)
Ignore the idiots, or flick them a smiley. Works for me ;)
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> > and you have something of value, you are attacked.
>
> Attacked by (mostly) a bunch of wankers who don't seem to do much
> useful themselves. People who do useful work once in a while know
> how much effort you are putting into Linux drivers and appreciate
> the work you're doing.
No, people like "Hell.Surfers" do not bother me and had nothing to do with
this decision. It is what came from my former peers, who do exactly what
I proposed, yet hide.
Harper Valley PTA come to mind.
Since that lot seems so worth to destroy my model, I am not sure if or
what I will do to force their hand of stealing from the cookie jar.
Never mind ...
--ah
I for one, would very much like for you to continue your work with Linux
there are a lot of people that do not appreciate your work, or dont care.
Thank you for for doing what you have done.
I hope you reconsider.
Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> >
> > > Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> > > and you have something of value, you are attacked.
> >
> > Attacked by (mostly) a bunch of wankers who don't seem to do much
> > useful themselves. People who do useful work once in a while know
> > how much effort you are putting into Linux drivers and appreciate
> > the work you're doing.
>
> No, people like "Hell.Surfers" do not bother me and had nothing to do with
> this decision. It is what came from my former peers, who do exactly what
> I proposed, yet hide.
>
> Harper Valley PTA come to mind.
>
> Since that lot seems so worth to destroy my model, I am not sure if or
> what I will do to force their hand of stealing from the cookie jar.
>
> Never mind ...
>
> --ah
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Regards,
Mark Rutherford
[email protected]
File: Mark Rutherford.ASC
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>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=hpbN
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:12:29AM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> Well, all this goes to show you is that if you try to do the right thing
> and you have something of value, you are attacked.
>
> I have enjoyed begin called everything from a turncoat, backstabber,
> cheater, liar, theif, weasle.
Microsloth sure does have it easy. A word here, a word there...
--
Brian Litzinger
I wrote:
> I believe that the illegality of proprietary kernel modules
>has resulting in more GPL-compatible kernel code than without such
>a restriction.
Andre has informed me of a posting made by Linus to the
gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup (Message-ID
"[email protected]") on December 17, 1995 where he
basically gave his permission for the EXPORT_SYMBOL
vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL system hereby proprietary modules that call only
EXPORT_SYMBOL symbols are allowed:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi
I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice. What
follows is just my layman's opinion.
I think the permission in Linus's gnu.misc.discuss cannot
apply retroactively to the contributions of others that were
contributed before that message was posted without those copyright
holders agreeing. It might help one argue that contributions by
others after that time included that implicit grant, but I wonder to
what degree you one can expect that contributors should have been
aware of a gnu.misc.discuss posting (for example, compared to being
aware of /usr/src/linux/COPYING). I wasn't aware of it until today.
I also doubt the theory that calling only through the
EXPORT_SYMBOL functions that Linus wrote makes Linus's permission
sufficient for binary modules as is theorized at the bottom of this URL:
http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html.
Running Linux still involves using a lot of other people's
contributions in ways restricted by copyright, generally requiring one
follow the conditions under which permission to do these things will
be granted (usually the GNU General Public License; some are less
restricted). Arguing that a compatability layer allows you to do
something with the software underneat that is forbidden by copyright
and not a permission granted by the copyright holder sounds to me like
saying that Netscape's compatability layer gives you permission to
make copies of Microsoft Windows (software potentially behind the
layer) beyond the restrictions of copyright and whatever permission
you already have from microsoft. I know the anaology isn't perfect,
but I believe the relevant aspects are.
Anyhow, I thought I should post this information, as it was
news to me, and I my posting of a few hours aga alone would otherwise
propagate my own previous ignorance of an important element of this
issue.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Andre has informed me of a posting made by Linus to the
> gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup (Message-ID
> "[email protected]") on December 17, 1995 where he
> basically gave his permission for the EXPORT_SYMBOL
> vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL system hereby proprietary modules that call only
> EXPORT_SYMBOL symbols are allowed:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki.fi
Why not formalise this in the Linux COPYING file?
It would make things clear, would help people like Andre and
corporations like NVidia to continue to bring drivers to linux. Not a
single person who matters (ie actual kernel contributors) has so far
expressed any opinion (eg in the rash of GPL threads currently
ongoing) that would indicate they are not happy with the current
status quo as detailed in the above post by Linus.
If EXPORT_SYMBOL kernel functions are LGPL (bar the
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL) formalise it in .../COPYING. (and peace can reign
on l-k once again :) ).
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
Census Taker to Housewife:
Did you ever have the measles, and, if so, how many?
There is another thread going on that seems to make this clear, the one
where Rusty Russell and Linus are discussing the implementation of the
module license enforcement mechanism. The policy in Rusty's code is
identical to the 1995 posting. So obviously they don't think it has
changed.
And frankly, courts in most parts of the world will look at community
practice as a (slightly weaker than a court case) precedent for what is
expected. Here we have seven years of precedent, including at least two
implementations of a mechanism that implemented the policy on
the kernel side, and many widely used binary-only-with-wrapper modules
(NVidia, winmodems, etc.).
I really think the issue was decided in 95 and cemented by time.
Andrew
Some extracts from the patch (the latter two conspire to enforce no linking
to gpl-only functions from incompatibly licensed modules):
...
+/*
+ * The following license idents are currently accepted as indicating free
+ * software modules
+ *
+ * "GPL" [GNU Public License v2 or later]
+ * "GPL v2" [GNU Public License v2]
+ * "GPL and additional rights" [GNU Public License v2 rights and more]
+ * "Dual BSD/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
+ * or BSD license choice]
+ * "Dual MPL/GPL" [GNU Public License v2
+ * or Mozilla license choice]
+ *
+ * The following other idents are available
+ *
+ * "Proprietary" [Non free products]
+ *
+ * There are dual licensed components, but when running with Linux it is
the
+ * GPL that is relevant so this is a non issue. Similarly LGPL linked with
GPL
+ * is a GPL combined work.
+ *
+ * This exists for several reasons
+ * 1. So modinfo can show license info for users wanting to vet their
setup
+ * is free
+ * 2. So the community can ignore bug reports including proprietary modules
+ * 3. So vendors can do likewise based on their own policies
+ */
...
+#define EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(sym) \
+ const struct kernel_symbol __ksymtab_##sym \
+ __attribute__((section("__gpl_ksymtab"))) \
+ = { (unsigned long)&sym, #sym }
...
list_for_each_entry(ks, &symbols, list) {
unsigned int i;
+ if (ks->gplonly && !gplok)
+ continue;
...
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 03:21:22 +0000 Paul Jakma <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>
>> Andre has informed me of a posting made by Linus to the
>> gnu.misc.discuss newsgroup (Message-ID
>> "[email protected]") on December 17, 1995 where he
>> basically gave his permission for the EXPORT_SYMBOL
>> vs. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL system hereby proprietary modules that call only
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL symbols are allowed:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=4b0rbb%245iu%40klaava.helsinki
>> .fi
>
> Why not formalise this in the Linux COPYING file?
>
> It would make things clear, would help people like Andre and
> corporations like NVidia to continue to bring drivers to linux. Not a
> single person who matters (ie actual kernel contributors) has so far
> expressed any opinion (eg in the rash of GPL threads currently
> ongoing) that would indicate they are not happy with the current
> status quo as detailed in the above post by Linus.
>
> If EXPORT_SYMBOL kernel functions are LGPL (bar the
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL) formalise it in .../COPYING. (and peace can reign
> on l-k once again :) ).
>
> regards,
> --
> Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
> warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
> Fortune:
> Census Taker to Housewife:
> Did you ever have the measles, and, if so, how many?
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
Paul Jakma wrote:
>It would make things clear, would help people like Andre and
>corporations like NVidia to continue to bring drivers to linux. Not a
>single person who matters (ie actual kernel contributors) has so far
>expressed any opinion (eg in the rash of GPL threads currently
>ongoing) that would indicate they are not happy with the current
>status quo as detailed in the above post by Linus.
Alan Cox (lots of stuff), Andre Hedrik (IDE), Rik van Riel
(VM) and William Lee Irwin (NUMA) are substantial contributors. I'm
not a principal author or maintainer of any kernel component, but I've
submitted a number of patches over the years that are part of the
kernel.
Speaking only for myself, Linus's gnu.misc.discuss posting was
not the understanding under which I contributed. I don't know of
Linus ever claiming that others are required to also grant the
permission that Linus granted in his gnu.misc.discuss posting as a
condition of their code being integrated into the stock kernels.
If you look toward the bottom of the second web page that I
mentioned in my previous message
( http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html ),
you'll see a statement from Alan Cox of June 7, 2001 making a similar
point. Here is a URL for the lkml message that that page quoted:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99193676018831&w=2
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
I wrote:
> Alan Cox (lots of stuff), Andre Hedrik (IDE), Rik van Riel
>(VM) and William Lee Irwin (NUMA) are substantial contributors. I'm [...]
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that Andre, Rik and
William were opposed to the idea of allowing proprietary modules at
least if they call through a set of defined interfaces. Andre and Rik
seem to be in favor of it. I don't think I've seen a statement from
wli about it.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
> Speaking only for myself, Linus's gnu.misc.discuss posting was
> not the understanding under which I contributed. I don't know of
> Linus ever claiming that others are required to also grant the
> permission that Linus granted in his gnu.misc.discuss posting as a
> condition of their code being integrated into the stock kernels.
The day that you take over the day to day running of the kernel effort
is the day that you get to enforce your rules. Linus provides huge
value that neither you nor anyone else provides. So he makes the rules.
If you don't like it, make a stink and withdraw your patches. They'll
get replaced right away.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 12:26, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> If you look toward the bottom of the second web page that I
> mentioned in my previous message
> ( http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html ),
> you'll see a statement from Alan Cox of June 7, 2001 making a similar
> point. Here is a URL for the lkml message that that page quoted:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99193676018831&w=2
Not the gcom response contains fundamental factual errors, it does not for
example understand how the LGPL/GPL interact
Adam,
As soon as I can find you more references, you will get them to post.
One key location is win4linux or is it linux4win.
Regardless, this is a haven of drivers iirc.
Cheers,
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Paul Jakma wrote:
> >It would make things clear, would help people like Andre and
> >corporations like NVidia to continue to bring drivers to linux. Not a
> >single person who matters (ie actual kernel contributors) has so far
> >expressed any opinion (eg in the rash of GPL threads currently
> >ongoing) that would indicate they are not happy with the current
> >status quo as detailed in the above post by Linus.
>
> Alan Cox (lots of stuff), Andre Hedrik (IDE), Rik van Riel
> (VM) and William Lee Irwin (NUMA) are substantial contributors. I'm
> not a principal author or maintainer of any kernel component, but I've
> submitted a number of patches over the years that are part of the
> kernel.
>
> Speaking only for myself, Linus's gnu.misc.discuss posting was
> not the understanding under which I contributed. I don't know of
> Linus ever claiming that others are required to also grant the
> permission that Linus granted in his gnu.misc.discuss posting as a
> condition of their code being integrated into the stock kernels.
>
> If you look toward the bottom of the second web page that I
> mentioned in my previous message
> ( http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html ),
> you'll see a statement from Alan Cox of June 7, 2001 making a similar
> point. Here is a URL for the lkml message that that page quoted:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99193676018831&w=2
>
>
> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
> [email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
>
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
> (and peace can reign on l-k once again :) ).
What imaginary l-k mailing list do you subscribe to?
- Matt
At 10:53 AM 1/5/2003 -0500, Matthew Zahorik wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> > (and peace can reign on l-k once again :) ).
>
>What imaginary l-k mailing list do you subscribe to?
These things come and go.
Peace will return. People eventually have to go off and think... they run
out of hot air.
-Mike
Adam J Richter wrote:
>> Alan Cox (lots of stuff), Andre Hedrik (IDE), Rik van Riel
>> (VM) and William Lee Irwin (NUMA) are substantial contributors. I'm [...]
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 04:34:23AM -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that Andre, Rik and
> William were opposed to the idea of allowing proprietary modules at
> least if they call through a set of defined interfaces. Andre and Rik
> seem to be in favor of it. I don't think I've seen a statement from
> wli about it.
I don't have any objection to proprietary modules in themselves, but
I'm quite willing to criticize irresponsible vendors of the things
causing problems for their users and mainline developers.
Bill
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 19:16:26 +0100
Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Peace will return. People eventually have to go off and think... they run
> out of hot air.
Unfortunately, this time round some of them seem to have nuclear reactors
powering their blowers.
Ah well, where else could you see St. Ignatius squaring off against the Mad
Genius of IDE and a WebTV user ;)
Hopefully, they'll lose interest some time before the next millenium...
At 04:47 AM 1/6/2003 +0900, Bruce Harada wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 19:16:26 +0100
>
>Ah well, where else could you see St. Ignatius squaring off against the Mad
>Genius of IDE and a WebTV user ;)
:)))
On 5 Jan 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 12:26, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> > If you look toward the bottom of the second web page that I
> > mentioned in my previous message
> > ( http://www.gcom.com/home/support/whitepapers/linux-gnu-license.html ),
> > you'll see a statement from Alan Cox of June 7, 2001 making a similar
> > point. Here is a URL for the lkml message that that page quoted:
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=99193676018831&w=2
>
> Not the gcom response contains fundamental factual errors, it does not for
> example understand how the LGPL/GPL interact
Alan,
Okay, but they had a lawyer draft a position.
Now given that RMS, FSF, et al. are out of the picture, and left to the
domain of the copyright holders, and you have a position of stenght.
Are you going to enforce the copyright on every file you have your name
on, regardless?
If this is the case, then the rest of us sadly have to pick sides.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Larry McVoy wrote:
>The day that you take over the day to day running of the kernel effort
>is the day that you get to enforce your rules. Linus provides huge
>value that neither you nor anyone else provides. So he makes the rules.
>If you don't like it, make a stink and withdraw your patches. They'll
>get replaced right away.
If you think no Linux copyright owner other than Linus can
enforce their copyrights, then your understanding of copyright law
is different from mine.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >The day that you take over the day to day running of the kernel effort
> >is the day that you get to enforce your rules. Linus provides huge
> >value that neither you nor anyone else provides. So he makes the rules.
> >If you don't like it, make a stink and withdraw your patches. They'll
> >get replaced right away.
>
> If you think no Linux copyright owner other than Linus can
> enforce their copyrights, then your understanding of copyright law
> is different from mine.
Adam,
This was just dropped in my lap.
---------------------------
Add IBM to this list with their QDIO drivers for OSA-Express on s390(x).
On S/390, IBM did the same as Andre. LCS drivers have been binary-only in
the beginning and have been released under GPL later after 3172 and other
LCS devices became obsoleted by IBM. QDIO is their current standard and
they don't want to open this channel protocol to their competition.
So i think, there is enough precedence even from the "big guys".
---------------------------
Now that you have clearly stated you are revoking usage of your work
except for GPL-ONLY.
Please list the files and functions you claim, under this decision.
If you are the sole copyright holder of a file it is clean and clear.
If you are not then you have a problem to settle with the joint owners.
I will ignore your claim on shared copyrights until you have a settlement,
if all persons holding copyright ownership agree with you then ...
How soon will there be a patch-war for everyone to stake a claim, and
screw the pooch ?
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
"Adam J. Richter" <[email protected]> writes:
> I believe that the illegality of proprietary kernel modules
>has resulting in more GPL-compatible kernel code than without such
>a restriction.
What people like you don't understand is, that there no such thing as
a "illegal proprietary kernel module" according to the GPL.
There is only an "illegal distribution of a proprietary binary kernel
module with the linux kernel" under the GPL.
If Andres' customers are happy with getting a binary only module for
use with their kernel, there is no violation of the GPL by Andre.
Regards
Henning (writing this on a computer with the nvidia
module loaded and happy about it. And
completely within the boundaries of the
GPL. No matter what RMS says).
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 15:29, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Now that you have clearly stated you are revoking usage of your work
> except for GPL-ONLY.
>
> Please list the files and functions you claim, under this decision.
> If you are the sole copyright holder of a file it is clean and clear.
> If you are not then you have a problem to settle with the joint owners.
> I will ignore your claim on shared copyrights until you have a settlement,
> if all persons holding copyright ownership agree with you then ...
>
> How soon will there be a patch-war for everyone to stake a claim, and
> screw the pooch ?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
I am ardent supporter of the GPL. I do have some problems with what
some people are doing (particularly Nvidia, namely because I believe if
I pay for hardware, I pay for the right to use it and to have the specs
on how to use it... i.e. they don't release programming info). However,
Linus has allowed for binary only modules.
All said and done, while I wish that all modules were GPLed, where Andre
and others do eventually release their code as GPL after development is
paid for... I can't fault them. More power to them for doing
sustainable development (Because people won't help cover development
costs without this kind of model) and in 18 months or so (From driver
creation) more power to us because they give it away under the GPL.
Now, if it is clear they are making derivitive works, this may be a
problem. Since I have little idea about if they are, I will leave this
to those that do.
Thank you for what you do do Andre, thank you to all who do things in a
decent way, whether that is GPL from the beginning (Those who can) or
those who delay the GPL until they can afford to do it.
Trever
--
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-- Unknown
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Bruce Harada wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 19:16:26 +0100
> Mike Galbraith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Peace will return. People eventually have to go off and think... they run
> > out of hot air.
>
> Unfortunately, this time round some of them seem to have nuclear reactors
> powering their blowers.
> Ah well, where else could you see St. Ignatius squaring off against the Mad
> Genius of IDE and a WebTV user ;)
>
> Hopefully, they'll lose interest some time before the next millenium...
I just got my power bill for this round.
Living in California, this just put me well into the 300% excess power
usage range :-(.
Now that things are settling down and out, and it is the sole issue of
distribution and some kind of screwy spin on what is a derived work.
The two briefs by Lawrence Rosen, about "Derivitive Works" and
"The Unreasonable Fear of Infection" blow holes into everyones arguement
the size of Mac Trucks.
There is a key phrase "contains or is derived from" v/s "combination".
Read the meanings folks and get a grip.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> "Adam J. Richter" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> I believe that the illegality of proprietary kernel modules
>>has resulting in more GPL-compatible kernel code than without such
>>a restriction.
>
>
> What people like you don't understand is, that there no such thing as
> a "illegal proprietary kernel module" according to the GPL.
>
> There is only an "illegal distribution of a proprietary binary kernel
> module with the linux kernel" under the GPL.
>
> If Andres' customers are happy with getting a binary only module for
> use with their kernel, there is no violation of the GPL by Andre.
>
> Regards
> Henning (writing this on a computer with the nvidia
> module loaded and happy about it. And
> completely within the boundaries of the
> GPL. No matter what RMS says).
Binary-only drivers are great as long as they work. Every such driver I
have used so far has worked perfectly.
I have only one problem with NVidia's driver: It refuses to compile
under 2.5.54 which requires me use X's nv driver or use 2.4.21 for KDE.
Anyone know how to get around that? :-)
-David
David van Hoose <[email protected]> writes:
>Binary-only drivers are great as long as they work. Every such driver I
>have used so far has worked perfectly.
>I have only one problem with NVidia's driver: It refuses to compile
>under 2.5.54 which requires me use X's nv driver or use 2.4.21 for KDE.
>Anyone know how to get around that? :-)
You get what you paid for. Go to the nVidia support forum and complain
loudly. That's what it is there for. I'd probably say that they tell
you to stick to the "released versions of Linux". If you consider this
support policy sucky, well there is the ATI Radeon chip...
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 17:28:52 -0500 "Trever L. Adams"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I am ardent supporter of the GPL. I do have some problems with what
> some people are doing (particularly Nvidia, namely because I believe if
> I pay for hardware, I pay for the right to use it and to have the specs
> on how to use it... i.e. they don't release programming info). However,
> Linus has allowed for binary only modules.
>
> Trever
I've had some discussion with an ex-NVidia guy who was there while they
were doing the driver release.
They wanted to dual GPL/BSD license the kernel part in the first place,
then they realised they had a problem. They don't own the copyright on all
that code themselves, nor do they have the right to redistribute specs for
all of the hardware without NDA, because it consists in part of purchased
'IP blocks' (as hardware people call libraries). So in the end they've
opened up as far as they were allowed by preexisting constraints.
Remember, the hardware was not constructed with an open source driver in
mind. It's fairly easy to build hardware which can have open source
drivers (you choose your IP block vendors carefully), but NVidia did not do
that in the first place, and now they are stuck.
So your belief about hardware is just plain false, unfortunately. You're
free not to buy their hardware, but I don't think you are being fair to dis
them when they appear to have gotten the point of open source but been
stymied by other vendors. NVidia do try hard to give you the right to use
their stuff with Linux, but there is only so far they can go.
I expect if Linux makes them enough money, they might buy the rights they
don't have, and release the driver in full. But don't expect that to
happen soon, because if you think proprietary software licenses can be
expensive, you haven't seen hardware.
Andrew
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 19:01, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> I've had some discussion with an ex-NVidia guy who was there while they
> were doing the driver release.
>
> They wanted to dual GPL/BSD license the kernel part in the first place,
> then they realised they had a problem. They don't own the copyright on all
> that code themselves, nor do they have the right to redistribute specs for
> all of the hardware without NDA, because it consists in part of purchased
> 'IP blocks' (as hardware people call libraries). So in the end they've
> opened up as far as they were allowed by preexisting constraints.
>
> Remember, the hardware was not constructed with an open source driver in
> mind. It's fairly easy to build hardware which can have open source
> drivers (you choose your IP block vendors carefully), but NVidia did not do
> that in the first place, and now they are stuck.
>
I was not aware of all of this as being the case. I am sorry they are
stuck in such a bad position. It does raise my opinion of them quite a
bit.
> So your belief about hardware is just plain false, unfortunately. You're
No, my belief may not reflect what is, but that doesn't make it false.
I know there were, at least until recently, countries that actually
dictated what I said by law. Again, how much did reality follow the
laws... your guess would probably be better than mine.
> free not to buy their hardware, but I don't think you are being fair to dis
> them when they appear to have gotten the point of open source but been
> stymied by other vendors. NVidia do try hard to give you the right to use
> their stuff with Linux, but there is only so far they can go.
>
> I expect if Linux makes them enough money, they might buy the rights they
> don't have, and release the driver in full. But don't expect that to
> happen soon, because if you think proprietary software licenses can be
> expensive, you haven't seen hardware.
I expect that IP is expensive to buy. Anyway, thank you for explaining
the Nvidia situation to me. I really hope they do figure out some
things soon. (Even if that is just how to make kernels with their
modules loaded more stable and easier to debug.)
Trever
--
"What makes his world so hard to see clearly is not its strangeness but
its usualness. Familiarity can blind you." -- Robert M. Pirsig
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> David van Hoose <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Binary-only drivers are great as long as they work. Every such driver I
>>have used so far has worked perfectly.
>>I have only one problem with NVidia's driver: It refuses to compile
>>under 2.5.54 which requires me use X's nv driver or use 2.4.21 for KDE.
>>Anyone know how to get around that? :-)
>
>
> You get what you paid for. Go to the nVidia support forum and complain
> loudly. That's what it is there for. I'd probably say that they tell
> you to stick to the "released versions of Linux". If you consider this
> support policy sucky, well there is the ATI Radeon chip...
Very true. And if they don't want to support the beta kernel, that's
there choice. I'd rather them throw a driver in for people that use the
beta kernel for possibly testing new chipsets, know whether or not they
need to do revisions before their own driver can be released, and so
when the beta kernel is finally released that they'll have a driver
right then to provide.
The impression I am getting from the GPL argument is that people want
100% opensource drivers. Well, to be frank, I'd rather have a driver
that isn't 100% opensource to no driver at all. I think most everyone on
this mailing list agrees. If not, I'd like to know why.
Personally, I think Andre does a lot of good for the kernel. I don't
know of many desktop systems that don't use IDE. Without someone like
Andre to keep up support as well as he does, IMO a lot of people would
get left unsupported and end up not using Linux. Less Linux users means
less demand for Linux support from mainstream developers and hardware
companies. People want a name to be able to communicate to when they are
having issues. Some will find their way to this mailing list, but others
will look for something that has (or has better) support.
-David
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 12:21:57PM -0800, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> >The day that you take over the day to day running of the kernel effort
> >is the day that you get to enforce your rules. Linus provides huge
> >value that neither you nor anyone else provides. So he makes the rules.
> >If you don't like it, make a stink and withdraw your patches. They'll
> >get replaced right away.
>
> If you think no Linux copyright owner other than Linus can
> enforce their copyrights, then your understanding of copyright law
> is different from mine.
What I think is that Linus provides a lot more value than you and all
the other yadda-yadda-yadda folks combined. Because he provides that
value, people follow his lead. If you want to try and rally a bunch of
people to say that their contributions don't go along with Linus' rules,
by all means, go for it. See how far you get.
Copyright law, this law, that law, none of it means shit compared to
real work and Linus does way more for the kernel than you ever will.
Everyone recognizes his leadership skills, most of us have disagreed
violently with Linus on more than one occasion, yet we still follow
his lead. Why? Because he's the best thing we have going. He's not
a zealot, he's a reasonable guy, you can get him to change his mind if
he's wrong, he's an extremely effective leader. You would do well to
emulate him but you are choosing to cause a fuss. I don't think people
are going to line up behind you, you don't have the same leadership
qualities and people aren't that unhappy with what Linus is doing.
I could be wrong but if I'm not what do you hope to accomplish other
than wasting a lot of time?
The cool thing is that if the community ever changes their mind about all
this, the kernel is GPLed and a new leader can emerge. Until that time,
how about you go back to coding rather complaining?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
At 07:15 PM 1/5/03 -0500, Trever L. Adams wrote:
>I expect that IP is expensive to buy. Anyway, thank you for explaining
>the Nvidia situation to me. I really hope they do figure out some
>things soon. (Even if that is just how to make kernels with their
>modules loaded more stable and easier to debug.)
Trever,
Just because Nvidia incorporate API-related intellectual property in their
current products doesn't mean that the next product they do will have the
same IP restrictions. Assuming that government and corporations continue
to examine and adopt Linux over other desktop systems, Nvidia's project
managers will have some incentive to look at this issue more closely.
As I see it, Andre's problems are a little tougher because there isn't a
choice of alternatives to the IP that he incorporates in his product, if
I'm reading his contributions correctly. (I've not followed the arguments
closely, so I could very well be in need of disabusement of my incorrect
notions.)
I'm surprised Richard Stallman didn't remind everyone of the thing that
started the whole argument for free software: his inability to drive a
laser printer because of closed, unpublished specifications. I won't put
words in his mouth (RMS is more than capable of speaking for himself) but
his concern is if the company goes away and there are problems with the
binary-only module, then people will be forced to junk the hardware or live
with the problems.
Ok, I'll go back to my hole now.
Satch
--
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein: it rejects it. -- P. Medawar
This posting is for entertainment purposes only; it is not a legal opinion.
On 05 Jan 2003 19:15:24 -0500
"Trever L. Adams" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was not aware of all of this as being the case. I am sorry they are
> stuck in such a bad position. It does raise my opinion of them quite
> a bit.
If you happen to believe that...
Larry McVoy writes:
>I could be wrong but if I'm not what do you hope to accomplish other
>than wasting a lot of time?
1. A clearer legal situation either way would reduce
competitive economic pressure on employees and companies
alike to go into darker and darker grey areas.
2. A clearer understanding that GPL-incompatible kernel
modules are illegal would prevent a repeat of the old
unix days when lots of companies invested money in
duplicating each other's kernel work. Perhaps fewer
dollars would be invested this way, but I believe
that ultimately more functionality would be delivered
to more people.
3. Most modestly, a clearer understanding that not every
kernel copyright owner grants the
EXPORT_SYMBOL / EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL permissions will at
least help everyone better assess the situation for
themselves in making their own decisions.
[...]
>Until that time,
>how about you go back to coding rather complaining?
Well, let's see. I've recently posted GPL'ed patches to
shrink devfs to a fraction of its size, to clean up /dev/loop, to
remove 1-2 copies in the crypto api path depending on how it's used,
to eliminate the need for special locking to do raceless module
unloading, and my name appears in 11 of the 2.5 ChangeLog files for
various little things. Sorry if I'm not working hard enough for you.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 12:29:16PM -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Please list the files and functions you claim, under this decision.
> If you are the sole copyright holder of a file it is clean and clear.
> If you are not then you have a problem to settle with the joint owners.
> I will ignore your claim on shared copyrights until you have a settlement,
> if all persons holding copyright ownership agree with you then ...
>
> How soon will there be a patch-war for everyone to stake a claim, and
> screw the pooch ?
Andre, you just made the point i've been thinking of for
some time. Let the people who object to having an interface
for binary-only modules stake out their code. If you have
no code you have no legal standing. Identify what code you
won't allow the binary modules to use.
I'm a lurker here. I just don't feel very itchy. But if
someone actually declares needed code off-limits for the
binary modules i and others could very quickly develop
serious itches to scratch. The patch-war will be people
replacing code belonging to the extremists.
--
________________________________________________________________
J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
--On Sunday, January 05, 2003 19:15:24 -0500 "Trever L. Adams"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 19:01, Andrew McGregor wrote:
>> I've had some discussion with an ex-NVidia guy who was there while they
>> were doing the driver release.
> I expect that IP is expensive to buy. Anyway, thank you for explaining
> the Nvidia situation to me. I really hope they do figure out some
> things soon. (Even if that is just how to make kernels with their
> modules loaded more stable and easier to debug.)
Well, there are people working on it. I seem to be one of the few people
for whom a 2.5.x + nvidia kernel really scratches an itch. (for me, it's
my laptop + kernel IPSEC)
There are patches at http://www.minion.de that make things stable up to 2.5.53.
.54 broke it again, but that will be fixed shortly.
Andrew
Andrew McGregor wrote:
> Well, there are people working on it. I seem to be one of the few
> people for whom a 2.5.x + nvidia kernel really scratches an itch. (for
> me, it's my laptop + kernel IPSEC)
>
> There are patches at http://www.minion.de that make things stable up to 2.5.53.
> .54 broke it again, but that will be fixed shortly
It was fixed with an update on http://www.minion.de on January 3. I've been
running 2.5.54 w/ the nVidia drivers since then... ;)
Brian Davids
On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 20:43, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> As I see it, Andre's problems are a little tougher because there isn't a
> choice of alternatives to the IP that he incorporates in his product, if
> I'm reading his contributions correctly. (I've not followed the arguments
> closely, so I could very well be in need of disabusement of my incorrect
> notions.)
>
> I'm surprised Richard Stallman didn't remind everyone of the thing that
> started the whole argument for free software: his inability to drive a
> laser printer because of closed, unpublished specifications. I won't put
> words in his mouth (RMS is more than capable of speaking for himself) but
> his concern is if the company goes away and there are problems with the
> binary-only module, then people will be forced to junk the hardware or live
> with the problems.
>
> Ok, I'll go back to my hole now.
>
> Satch
I guess a question then might be this: Andrea, I understand your stance
of needing to make a decent living and fund development. I think Satch
has a point about the company going away (or the Bus problem... as in
something happens to you). Is there any way you can feasibly (legal and
monetary concerns included) do a kind of code escrow so if such happens,
your code becomes GPL/BSD?
BTW, I may be somewhat out of understanding here. From what I have been
reading it seems the following is true:
1) Andre is making drivers for hardware or protocols
2) He is making them closed until he recoups his costs (I saw 18 mos
somewhere as the time needed...)
3) He then will open them up
If I am wrong, sorry, but this should say where I am seeing all this
from.
Also, I see the following...
1) The problem lies with him including kernel headers (I didn't think
magic numbers and such were really coverable by copyright... so unless
we are talking macros... where is the problem).
2) Interfaces are reverse engineer-able under US law for
interoperability purposes (DMCA may have muddied this)
3) The Interface calls (sys-calls etc.) are LGPL...
So where is the real problem here?
Trever
--
One O.S. to rule them all, One O.S. to find them. One O.S. to bring them
all and in the darkness bind them.
On 6 Jan 2003, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> I guess a question then might be this: Andrea, I understand your stance
> of needing to make a decent living and fund development. I think Satch
> has a point about the company going away (or the Bus problem... as in
> something happens to you). Is there any way you can feasibly (legal and
Oh, like when I totalled my Porsche 928 and should have died hitting nose
first into a retaining wall @ 5Krpm in 3rd after somebody ran me off the
interstate ?
> monetary concerns included) do a kind of code escrow so if such happens,
> your code becomes GPL/BSD?
This is all dependent on the issue below.
> BTW, I may be somewhat out of understanding here. From what I have been
> reading it seems the following is true:
>
> 1) Andre is making drivers for hardware or protocols
> 2) He is making them closed until he recoups his costs (I saw 18 mos
> somewhere as the time needed...)
> 3) He then will open them up
>
> If I am wrong, sorry, but this should say where I am seeing all this
> from.
>
> Also, I see the following...
>
> 1) The problem lies with him including kernel headers (I didn't think
> magic numbers and such were really coverable by copyright... so unless
> we are talking macros... where is the problem).
If this is a problem, there will be no project to open source.
> 2) Interfaces are reverse engineer-able under US law for
> interoperability purposes (DMCA may have muddied this)
> 3) The Interface calls (sys-calls etc.) are LGPL...
(target)
It calls net, mm, slab, timer, spinlock, semaphore, scsi (structs and
about 5 or 6 functions), misc/char device, module the basics.
ZERO .c files period for the target protocol transport. ata+sata can
substitute for scsi if selected.
(initiator)
All of the above, and the critical point is "scsi_module.c", but I can
write my own version of the functions below.
This is why I initially put forward this half of the protocol as an issue.
Now since it is only combining and not changing or derived from that file,
GPL has no say or position of adding that copyright to mine.
Regardless, this is a concern as to be totally above board.
Now there are several vendors who attach this file by one means or
another, so this is very gray.
Additionally there is no license in the file, only Copyright.
This is a concern but the logic is simple,
Actually I just realized I have copyright ownership of similar logic in
another file. WOOHOO !
Therefore, I now no longer have an issue with "scsi_module.c", so I am
totally .c free regardless. I had taken the precaution to place the the
include line in one of my .h files to insure that object was created first
and my .o's for the protocol are summed first then the two are LD'd at the
very end. Now I do not have this difficult makefile and order of
operations to worry about now!
Thanks :-)
> So where is the real problem here?
Paranoia of accidently doing something wrong.
Concerned to the Nth degree that I follow the rules of binary module usage
toed exactly to the line, not short not over but exact. Zero margin for
error is allowed. Since I know better, I have to be that more careful.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
If there are no problems and I do not have to switch platforms, I have my
sights set on the next generation of storage about three years out. iSCSI
is expected to fully mature in 2006/2008, its value is reduced. My
chances of recovering my costs are slipping right now, as customers are
waiting now.
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 01:22, David van Hoose wrote:
> Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > David van Hoose <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Binary-only drivers are great as long as they work. Every such driver I
> >>have used so far has worked perfectly.
> >>I have only one problem with NVidia's driver: It refuses to compile
> >>under 2.5.54 which requires me use X's nv driver or use 2.4.21 for KDE.
> >>Anyone know how to get around that? :-)
> >
> >
> > You get what you paid for. Go to the nVidia support forum and complain
> > loudly. That's what it is there for. I'd probably say that they tell
> > you to stick to the "released versions of Linux". If you consider this
> > support policy sucky, well there is the ATI Radeon chip...
>
> Very true. And if they don't want to support the beta kernel, that's
> there choice. I'd rather them throw a driver in for people that use the
> beta kernel for possibly testing new chipsets, know whether or not they
> need to do revisions before their own driver can be released, and so
> when the beta kernel is finally released that they'll have a driver
> right then to provide.
As I use the nvdriver on 2.4, I didn't have the pressure yet to chase a
driver for 2.5. But I'd guess that nvidia has some sort of non-public
beta program where they do testing of their stuff on latest kernels. I'd
simply ask whether there is such a program and how to join.
After all, they surely _want_ their driver to be used. Because it sells
boards. :-)
> The impression I am getting from the GPL argument is that people want
> 100% opensource drivers. Well, to be frank, I'd rather have a driver
> that isn't 100% opensource to no driver at all. I think most everyone on
Couldn't agree more.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, David van Hoose wrote:
> The impression I am getting from the GPL argument is that people want
> 100% opensource drivers. Well, to be frank, I'd rather have a driver
> that isn't 100% opensource to no driver at all. I think most everyone on
> this mailing list agrees. If not, I'd like to know why.
You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
(modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
--
Matthias Andree
Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, David van Hoose wrote:
>
>
>>The impression I am getting from the GPL argument is that people want
>>100% opensource drivers. Well, to be frank, I'd rather have a driver
>>that isn't 100% opensource to no driver at all. I think most everyone on
>>this mailing list agrees. If not, I'd like to know why.
>
>
> You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> (modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
>
Fine for us developers, but 99.5% of users wouldn't recognise a c
function if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. If it doesn't say
"linux supported" on the box, they won't buy it. Google? Source Forge?
./configure? WTFIT?. Where is their freedom?
Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
I for one think thats a real shame
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2003, David van Hoose wrote:
>
> > The impression I am getting from the GPL argument is that people want
> > 100% opensource drivers. Well, to be frank, I'd rather have a driver
> > that isn't 100% opensource to no driver at all. I think most everyone on
> > this mailing list agrees. If not, I'd like to know why.
>
> You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> (modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
Well I am silly and toss in a 1 year free upgrade service clause.
For product upgrades and kernel upgrades, so your arguement is not an
issue for me.
Regardless, it looks like the issues are still muddy on modules so, all of
this noisy may be for nothing.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:07, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Fine for us developers, but 99.5% of users wouldn't recognise a c
> function if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. If it doesn't say
> "linux supported" on the box, they won't buy it. Google? Source Forge?
> ./configure? WTFIT?. Where is their freedom?
>
> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
>
> I for one think thats a real shame
You are just being silly. Any half-decent person (including my grandma,
seriously!) can set up distributions such as Mandrake and now maybe even
Red Hat. The problem I see, especially here (but atleast normal people
won't subscribe :P), is that a lot of Linux users hate proprietary
software and bla bla you get what I was going to say there. Anyways its
quite easy to set up a system and you no longer have to be a hobbyiest.
you did read IDC's predictions didn't you? Linux has a chance of
becoming #2 in the next year or so. Beats me what this had to do w/the
topic either..geez.
--
Steven
[email protected]
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> Matthias Andree wrote:
> >You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> >the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> >(modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> >better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
>
> Fine for us developers, but 99.5% of users wouldn't recognise a c
> function if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. If it doesn't say
> "linux supported" on the box, they won't buy it. Google? Source Forge?
> ./configure? WTFIT?. Where is their freedom?
> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
> I for one think thats a real shame
Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
Steven Barnhart <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:07, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>> Fine for us developers, but 99.5% of users wouldn't recognise a c
>> function if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. If it doesn't say
>> "linux supported" on the box, they won't buy it. Google? Source Forge?
>> ./configure? WTFIT?. Where is their freedom?
>>
>> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
>> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
>> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
>>
>> I for one think thats a real shame
>You are just being silly. Any half-decent person (including my grandma,
>seriously!) can set up distributions such as Mandrake and now maybe even
>Red Hat. The problem I see, especially here (but atleast normal people
And that is exactly what most of the OSS advocates get wrong. They
can't. My wife (which is a physician and my prime example here
because she's in nuclear medicine and works with computers (Sun, Vax
(sic!), Windows, MacOS) all day long at work and knows quite a bit
about Unix) can't set up RedHat Linux, SuSE Linux, Windows 98, Windows
2000 or MacOS either. And I can't adjust a PET scanner which is
trivial to her. It is simply not my area of work. And your grandma
_can't_ set up Linux because when the first window pops up and asks
about "workstation / server / laptop / custom" installation, she's
lost. Because she does not _know_ what a workstation or a server
is. She has a computer for surfing and text processing.
Not a "work" station.
Yes, looks trivial to you and me. But it isn't to your grandma.
Most of the people advocating that "Linux is simple to use for
everyone" never really tried to install Linux to "everyone" and then
leave them alone just like most people do with Windows installations.
Install Linux for your grandma, show her how to use it and then don't
answer her phone calls for about two weeks. Rinse. Repeat with
Windows. You will be surprised about the outcome. Rinse. Repeat with a
non-english speaker and a localized version of Linux / Windows. You
will be surprised even more. BTDTGTT.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Matthias Andree <[email protected]> writes:
>> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
>> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
>> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
>> I for one think thats a real shame
>Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
>support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
>for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
>try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-35/0559.html
Dated 5. September 2001.
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:57:25AM +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Install Linux for your grandma, show her how to use it and then don't
> answer her phone calls for about two weeks. Rinse. Repeat with
> Windows. You will be surprised about the outcome. Rinse. Repeat with a
> non-english speaker and a localized version of Linux / Windows. You
> will be surprised even more. BTDTGTT.
Rather than "moaning", if do you have such good ideas
for improving distributions could you not simply contribute,
to the Debian desktop project for example?
I agree, the distributions are not quite ready yet,
but a few good ideas and emails a week may actually
make the difference.
Alex
--
One of the hundreds of KDE contributors
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 10:07, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
> >support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
> >for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
> >try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
>
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-35/0559.html
>
> Dated 5. September 2001.
Its one of the things the new module loader and the presence of
the crypto libs in 2.5 will make a lot easier to do...
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:41, Matthias Andree wrote:
> You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> (modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
Which is why you chose an open source driver over a closed source
driver, but you're STILL ignoring the "any driver is better than none"
argument.
Dana "Not playing 3d, so fully open source driven" Lacoste
Ottawa, Canada
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
> support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
> for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
> try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
To be honest, support for Windows is much easier than Linux. There are
only a few versions of Windows out, in terms of how many versions are
needed, and in many cases the same driver will work for several versions.
For Linux, there are not only dozens of kernel versions around, but the
uni and smp versions are not the same. Vendors who want to provide drivers
really want to provide the binary even if the module is open source, just
because the average person has no desire to build any part of a kernel.
So it is possible to release a driver and claim in good faith that it
works, and still not have it work with *your* system. Not because the
vendor is evil, incompetent, a "crook" (your term), dishonest, or even
that testing was poor, but because all kernels are very much not created
equal.
Try to understand why vendors want to ship binary modules and why they
don't always work before making accusations.
All that said, an independent testing service would be of use to the
vendors, because they could find things before shipping and have someone
to share the blame if the module didn't work with another kernel.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 11:32:48AM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Try to understand why vendors want to ship binary modules and why they
> don't always work before making accusations.
I don't think *anyone* has a problem with vendors shipping binary
modules that the source is available for. (and has a free license)
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 10:32 am, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
> > support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
> > for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
> > try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
>
> To be honest, support for Windows is much easier than Linux. There are
> only a few versions of Windows out, in terms of how many versions are
> needed, and in many cases the same driver will work for several versions.
>
> For Linux, there are not only dozens of kernel versions around, but the
> uni and smp versions are not the same. Vendors who want to provide drivers
> really want to provide the binary even if the module is open source, just
> because the average person has no desire to build any part of a kernel.
>
> So it is possible to release a driver and claim in good faith that it
> works, and still not have it work with *your* system. Not because the
> vendor is evil, incompetent, a "crook" (your term), dishonest, or even
> that testing was poor, but because all kernels are very much not created
> equal.
I would still incline toward the "testing was poor". If the vendor just says
"works with Linux", and not "works with Linux 2.4.18", then it is deceptive,
and worst case it becomes dishonest.
> Try to understand why vendors want to ship binary modules and why they
> don't always work before making accusations.
Been there (though it wasn't within the last 20 years). The only justification
for not releasing the specifications is incompetent hardware design worked
around by software. Releasing the software would reveal how incompetent
some designers are.
> All that said, an independent testing service would be of use to the
> vendors, because they could find things before shipping and have someone
> to share the blame if the module didn't work with another kernel.
Releasing the source would save more money than the testing service costs.
Besides, I'm not buying a driver - I only want the device, and the specs on
the device that may allow me or someone else to create a driver for Linux
or some other purpose (ie - a dedicated, embeded system not necessarily based
on Linux)...
Personally, I view binary only drivers as evidence of incompetence, or
embarassement over how poor a design is in the first place...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 January 2003 10:32 am, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > For Linux, there are not only dozens of kernel versions around, but the
> > uni and smp versions are not the same. Vendors who want to provide drivers
> > really want to provide the binary even if the module is open source, just
> > because the average person has no desire to build any part of a kernel.
> > Try to understand why vendors want to ship binary modules and why they
> > don't always work before making accusations.
>
> Been there (though it wasn't within the last 20 years). The only justification
> for not releasing the specifications is incompetent hardware design worked
> around by software. Releasing the software would reveal how incompetent
> some designers are.
>
> > All that said, an independent testing service would be of use to the
> > vendors, because they could find things before shipping and have someone
> > to share the blame if the module didn't work with another kernel.
>
> Releasing the source would save more money than the testing service costs.
> Besides, I'm not buying a driver - I only want the device, and the specs on
> the device that may allow me or someone else to create a driver for Linux
> or some other purpose (ie - a dedicated, embeded system not necessarily based
> on Linux)...
>
> Personally, I view binary only drivers as evidence of incompetence, or
> embarassement over how poor a design is in the first place...
Either you didn't read or didn't understand the points I was making that
even if the driver is open source the vendors still have good reasons to
release a binary module with the hardware.
I'm sorry I don't know how to state it more clearly than I did the first
time, it has zero to do with open source or not, and all to do with what
the majority of users are capable of installing.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 11:20, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Got a ref for the IDC statement? I must have missed that.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-979064.html
--
Steven
[email protected]
GnuPG Fingerprint: 9357 F403 B0A1 E18D 86D5 2230 BB92 6D64 D516 0A94
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Personally, I view binary only drivers as evidence of incompetence, or
> embarassement over how poor a design is in the first place...
Funny how you would call a persons work who you trust in open source now
becomes dirty in closed. Next time you spout crap of this magnitude,
remember who made possible for the DCFL "Defense Computer Forensics Lab",
your cluster computers to use ATA by writing giving away almost all the
pci chipsets supported to date.
I am not incompetence or embarassement, just want to pay the mortgage.
So why don't you offer to pay my mortgage and bills for the next 30 years?
So from the "incompetence" and "embarassed" author of your disk drives,
you are welcome.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Am Die, 2003-01-07 um 10.57 schrieb Henning P. Schmiedehausen:
> Install Linux for your grandma, show her how to use it and then don't
> answer her phone calls for about two weeks. Rinse. Repeat with
> Windows. You will be surprised about the outcome. Rinse. Repeat with a
> non-english speaker and a localized version of Linux / Windows. You
> will be surprised even more. BTDTGTT.
Interesting you mention it: I'm "supporting" several equally skilled
family members' computers, half of them running Windows (XP Prof, ME,
98SE - you pick the flavour) half of them running Debian testing, guess
which call more often? Oh yes, and if they call: The Linux people call
in advance *before* making decisions (like buying new hardware) while
the Windows people only call me to clean up the messed system...
--
Servus,
Daniel
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 02:58 pm, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Personally, I view binary only drivers as evidence of incompetence, or
> > embarassement over how poor a design is in the first place...
>
> Funny how you would call a persons work who you trust in open source now
> becomes dirty in closed. Next time you spout crap of this magnitude,
> remember who made possible for the DCFL "Defense Computer Forensics Lab",
> your cluster computers to use ATA by writing giving away almost all the
> pci chipsets supported to date.
>
> I am not incompetence or embarassement, just want to pay the mortgage.
> So why don't you offer to pay my mortgage and bills for the next 30 years?
>
> So from the "incompetence" and "embarassed" author of your disk drives,
> you are welcome.
Not quite the same thing. I'm referring to the hardware design. I've seen too
much crap hidden in drivers to try and coverup crappy hardware
design/implementation.
I would presume your cut would come from my willingness to purchace the
hardware. Your added value is a software demonstration of capability. My
contribution is to test your source under other versions of the kernel, and if
I improve/fix bugs that are then returned to the community which you then
merge into your driver back to the company. Then more hardware would get
sold, and you get another cut.
If they don't pay you for support, then you are not required to provide
additional support by merging, redesigning, or extending. Your contribution
to the company is to improve their sales.
I used to develop drivers for DEC hardware, for OSs that were NOT from DEC.
I was paid by those who used that hardware for additional sales (actually,
they leased equipment/services for oil surveys). Why was DEC equipment
used?
1. full hardware documentation was available
2. it was the least expensive hardware
3. the devices worked (well.. up until they started trying to kill the PDP11s)
Out of the hardware designed by the company (not DEC), the only parts they
would NOT release was a piece of crap that was a radio ranging interface. It
did not even provide a synchronous parallel interface (we were forced to read
the device twice and compair the reads. If they didn't match, then we had to
read it again and compair. If this didn't match the preceeding answer, we had
to start over... If two of them matched then we got a good read... 90 times
out of a 100...)
Oh, I almost forgot the other crappy one - a spread spectrum modem that would
receive 130 to 140 bytes for every 128 bytes sent... We had to implement a
full packet protocol just to send 15 bytes (it wouldn't start tansmitting
until the 16th byte was sent to the device). Then we had to be sure to send
AT LEAST enough to fill out 128 bytes, even if we didn't have that much data.
(I don't think it stopped transmitting until it had sent 128) and nulls
weren't accepted for some reason. I could not convince the designer that
it would be much better to put the packet protocol in the modem itself and
hide those bad bytes.
Neither of these were very acceptable to the clients... but we hid most of
the crap in the drivers.
In your case, If I can't get the full specs (even to understand what the
device is supposed to do), then I don't really want it. If I recieve drivers
that work, and available in source (all of mine currently are this way), then
I'll use it, and I am willing to purchase more of them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Been there (though it wasn't within the last 20 years). The only justification
> for not releasing the specifications is incompetent hardware design worked
> around by software. Releasing the software would reveal how incompetent
> some designers are.
Or they just didn't have the time or other resources to go for the real
solution, but just /had/ to crutch around. They wouldn't be allowed to
tell even their wife as long as they worked with the same employer.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:41, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> > You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> > the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> > (modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> > better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
>
> Which is why you chose an open source driver over a closed source
> driver, but you're STILL ignoring the "any driver is better than none"
> argument.
Depends on the driver quality. If it's stable, then it might qualify. If
it confuses my computer, then I'll rather sell the hardware to someone
who doesn't use Linux and buy a hardware that is documented and has
decent OpenSource drivers.
--
Matthias Andree
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> For Linux, there are not only dozens of kernel versions around, but the
> uni and smp versions are not the same. Vendors who want to provide drivers
> really want to provide the binary even if the module is open source, just
> because the average person has no desire to build any part of a kernel.
That's sad but true. Would there be a way to have universal interfaces
that are always the same? I mean, I'd think that if all SMP stuff is
conditionally compiled and optimized to nothing on a UP kernel that only
has the do-nothing stubs (yes, it costs overhead), but if it cuts the
maintenance workload down to half its former size, it'd be worth it.
> So it is possible to release a driver and claim in good faith that it
> works, and still not have it work with *your* system. Not because the
> vendor is evil, incompetent, a "crook" (your term), dishonest, or even
> that testing was poor, but because all kernels are very much not created
> equal.
Well, if someone claims "Linux driver coming soon" and that driver gets
never released, that'd qualify for the harsh term. If it claims Linux
support but the performance is not on par with other OSs or similar
hardware, that's no support either.
> Try to understand why vendors want to ship binary modules and why they
> don't always work before making accusations.
Binary drivers can still be OpenSource, if they just ship with the
source. Binary-only is the problem, and that is what I was referring to.
Please excuse my causing misunderstandings.
> All that said, an independent testing service would be of use to the
> vendors, because they could find things before shipping and have someone
> to share the blame if the module didn't work with another kernel.
Indeed.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Not quite the same thing. I'm referring to the hardware design. I've seen too
> much crap hidden in drivers to try and coverup crappy hardware
> design/implementation.
I never said there was hardware involved.
I could add hardware in the form of CAM.
Content Addressable Memory.
> I would presume your cut would come from my willingness to purchace the
> hardware. Your added value is a software demonstration of capability. My
Nope, it is pure software ... my cut is you buying the driver.
If the hardware fails, it is in opensouce drivers.
Cheers,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
> In very semplicistic words:
> In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> one.
I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
for the drivers.
If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
What really surprises me is that in this thread, nor in the other one about
NVIDIA module, none made a mantion about the 2.5 modules infrastructure
of next 2.6 kernels using runqueue instead of task queues and tasklets.
In very semplicistic words:
In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
one.
(tasklets still remains, so that I can use with 2.5 kernel tha NVIDIA
modules with the patch fronm http://www.minion.de.)
I saw just a very defuse mention from Andre Hedrick.
That would be an important point, because some term of the discussion changes.
First of all, I do not mnd about binary only modules, and fixed ones like
nvidia, I was knowing I would had to use them when I bought those cards.
I do also agree with reasons of Andre Hedrick.
But this particular new modules infrastructures is a big penality for binary
only modules, AND SO IS A STRONG POSITION OF THE LINUX KERNEL AS A WHOLE
ABOUT THIS TOPIC.
This is a good incentive for company to GPL the drivers, and for users to use
GPL ones. This is a fact, and every one forgot it.
Then, if a developers wants to release a binary only modules, and then release
the sources when his work is repaid,
he can do so. I will be happy to use this module, if I need it, if it is stable
and works with the kernel version i choice (if not, I simply will go for
another hardware if I can),
and happier when it will be GPL
also because potentially it could work even better.
On the other side, the the linux kernel has implemented the just one smart
incentive for all to release modules under GPL, and who instead
choiche to release binary only modules knows very well that he will have
to face some true limitation. The developers has a serious reason to GPL
the code when he is "repaid".
For big companies like NVIDIA situation is slighly different.
They are already repaid by hardware, and they have all the interess
to have drivers that work at best. Image is important for them,
and performance gain too.
So they are strongly pushed since the
beginning to GPL the code, to avoid any kind of penalty.
how could they loose costumers just because a worse hardware works better
because of a GPL driver?
maybe my samples are too extreme (of course they are, ad every
provocation), but I was tired
to listen all
discussion about ideological points, and none considering
a pragmatic technical argument.
Luigi Genoni
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 00:28:20 +0100
> From: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
>
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Dana Lacoste wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 18:41, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >
> > > You're at the author's mercy if you need to upgrade your kernel or if
> > > the driver doesn't work for you. I'd rather know before buying a product
> > > (modem, GFX board, ...) if there's either non-NDA'd documentation or
> > > better an OpenSource driver or at least support for such.
> >
> > Which is why you chose an open source driver over a closed source
> > driver, but you're STILL ignoring the "any driver is better than none"
> > argument.
>
> Depends on the driver quality. If it's stable, then it might qualify. If
> it confuses my computer, then I'll rather sell the hardware to someone
> who doesn't use Linux and buy a hardware that is documented and has
> decent OpenSource drivers.
>
> --
> Matthias Andree
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
well, I was forgetting to specify,
queues are kernel threads, and that is quite
optimum expecially on SMP systems.
One big advantage is that conflicts possibilities are
(should be) less than minimal.
Luigi
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:30:50 -0800
> From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
>
>
> > In very semplicistic words:
> > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > one.
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> for the drivers.
>
> If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
> They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
> have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
>
> Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
>
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 00:30, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> for the drivers.
Its actually quite messy because level triggered interrupts create priority
handling problems and memory allocations create all sorts of amazing deadlocks
Luigi,
You forgot one thing. None of us can control what the end user does.
If a vendor tells the enduser to alter the 2.5/2.6 kernel and recompile.
What are you going to do?
Add a clause where the enduser can not change the source code or apply a
patch to do it for them?
Funny, you lost your rights to do that w/ GPL, as did I.
*sigh*
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> well, I was forgetting to specify,
> queues are kernel threads, and that is quite
> optimum expecially on SMP systems.
> One big advantage is that conflicts possibilities are
> (should be) less than minimal.
>
> Luigi
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:30:50 -0800
> > From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
> >
> >
> > > In very semplicistic words:
> > > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > > one.
> >
> > I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> > me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> > drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> > to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> > plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> > for the drivers.
> >
> > If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
> > They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
> > have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
> >
> > Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
> > --
> > ---
> > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > In very semplicistic words:
> > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > one.
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> for the drivers.
Some parts of the kernel have opened up for user space, think the
user-space file system efforts as one example.
People, I am confident would rather use GPLd drivers in GNU/Linux, without checksums and make their own checksums, NT4 SP6 would get drivers from the makers of the iSCSI cards, its easy to make them, im working on GPLd support for USB under W95.
Dean McEwan, If the drugs don't work, [sarcasm] take more...[/sarcasm].
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:24:12 -0800 (PST) Andre Hedrick <[email protected]> wrote:
if I understand your point, a vendor could ask to the end user to apply a patch
to the new kernels, so that modules infrastructure will be changed, and also non
GPLed modules can create their own run queue.
Yes, it is possible, because we are talking about open source (I mean a more
generic definition instead of free-software, i.e. all the software that comes
with source code). I would add, it's in the rules of the game.
But developers for this patch have to be paid, and
patch could create conflicts, and has to be maintained togheter with the
binary only module (depends on costs).
To say the truth, I do not even expect end users to care if the modules is
running with its own kernel threads in his own run queue, or it is using the
defaul queue.
Anyway I found the runqueue concept, as it has been implemented, an
equilibrate and factual solution to incentivate companies to GPL their code,
and I was surprised that none (except a short allusion from you),
in two threads took the opportunity to talk about a fact and a good point.
Luigi Genoni
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
> Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:10:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: Andre Hedrick <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>, Matthias Andree <[email protected]>,
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
>
>
> Luigi,
>
> You forgot one thing. None of us can control what the end user does.
> If a vendor tells the enduser to alter the 2.5/2.6 kernel and recompile.
> What are you going to do?
>
> Add a clause where the enduser can not change the source code or apply a
> patch to do it for them?
>
> Funny, you lost your rights to do that w/ GPL, as did I.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Andre Hedrick
> LAD Storage Consulting Group
>
> On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > well, I was forgetting to specify,
> > queues are kernel threads, and that is quite
> > optimum expecially on SMP systems.
> > One big advantage is that conflicts possibilities are
> > (should be) less than minimal.
> >
> > Luigi
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:30:50 -0800
> > > From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Cc: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> > > [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
> > >
> > >
> > > > In very semplicistic words:
> > > > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > > > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> > > me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> > > drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> > > to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> > > plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> > > for the drivers.
> > >
> > > If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
> > > They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
> > > have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
> > >
> > > Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> > >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> >
>
Luigi,
I have finally determined that nobody really gives a flying flip what you
do or what ship. Nobody cares.
I have made more noise than a jackass in tin barn.
Trying to grab the attention of peer developers.
There are binary modules out there left and right.
Many are dirty, many are okay, many do not give a rip.
I have seen and know of lots of them.
The really bad ones I laugh in the face of the vendor.
Then there are the really slick ones, which I suspect can spoof anything.
I have asked for people to object, and only one person really has.
I have pissed off everyone.
While searching for the exact line of where things are black and white.
Nobody cares enough to help clear the air.
Nobody cares to pursue any of the existing binary modules.
I just do not get it anymore.
I guess I will shutup and do whatever.
Maybe I will get sued maybe I will not.
Regards,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
Sorry for buggy everyone.
Sorry for asking first, instead of just doing it with thumb on nose.
Sorry most that I never found an answer.
Guess I need to listen to a lawyer.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
>
> if I understand your point, a vendor could ask to the end user to apply a patch
> to the new kernels, so that modules infrastructure will be changed, and also non
> GPLed modules can create their own run queue.
>
>
> Yes, it is possible, because we are talking about open source (I mean a more
> generic definition instead of free-software, i.e. all the software that comes
> with source code). I would add, it's in the rules of the game.
> But developers for this patch have to be paid, and
> patch could create conflicts, and has to be maintained togheter with the
> binary only module (depends on costs).
>
> To say the truth, I do not even expect end users to care if the modules is
> running with its own kernel threads in his own run queue, or it is using the
> defaul queue.
>
> Anyway I found the runqueue concept, as it has been implemented, an
> equilibrate and factual solution to incentivate companies to GPL their code,
> and I was surprised that none (except a short allusion from you),
> in two threads took the opportunity to talk about a fact and a good point.
>
> Luigi Genoni
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 17:10:41 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Andre Hedrick <[email protected]>
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>, Matthias Andree <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
> >
> >
> > Luigi,
> >
> > You forgot one thing. None of us can control what the end user does.
> > If a vendor tells the enduser to alter the 2.5/2.6 kernel and recompile.
> > What are you going to do?
> >
> > Add a clause where the enduser can not change the source code or apply a
> > patch to do it for them?
> >
> > Funny, you lost your rights to do that w/ GPL, as did I.
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > well, I was forgetting to specify,
> > > queues are kernel threads, and that is quite
> > > optimum expecially on SMP systems.
> > > One big advantage is that conflicts possibilities are
> > > (should be) less than minimal.
> > >
> > > Luigi
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 16:30:50 -0800
> > > > From: Larry McVoy <[email protected]>
> > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > Cc: Matthias Andree <[email protected]>, [email protected],
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > Subject: Re: Honest does not pay here ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > In very semplicistic words:
> > > > > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > > > > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > > > > one.
> > > >
> > > > I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> > > > me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> > > > drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> > > > to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> > > > plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> > > > for the drivers.
> > > >
> > > > If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
> > > > They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
> > > > have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
> > > > --
> > > > ---
> > > > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> > >
> >
>
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 06:30 pm, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > In very semplicistic words:
> > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a
> > default one.
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> for the drivers.
>
> If you think about it, drivers are more or less
> open/close/read/write/ioctl. They need kernel privileges to do their thing
> but don't need (and shouldn't have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
>
> Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
The big problem is overhead.
The last successful user mode driver I used was in the old RSX-11
systems - all drivers were user mode.
The other place user mode drivers are used is in microkernel structures.
The problem is context switching time. If the hardware isn't designed to
support 10-20 simultaneous contexts, you must save/restore register sets
on each interrupt for the device.
If you split the driver into a kernel interface driver (the
open/close/read/write/ioctl style) then you have a VERY limited time
for doing certain types of processing - consider the time delays that
would get imposed on audio synthesis - each segment must be encoded
by the driver before being sent to the kernel interface driver. The
application then has to switch:
appuser mode ->kernel->user mode driver->kernel mode
interface->user mode driver->kernel->appuser mode
Before the application being able to resynchronize with the video.. which
would go through the same type of interface.
What Linux is using is more like a real time system. The tasklets/task queues
are more like a full featured RT system with priority queues. This allows a
fair amount of processing to be done by the driver without requiring heavy
handed context switching loads. What it appears to lack for a RT system is
a guaranteed interrupt latency.
In a microkernel envionment (where it can work) there need to be enough
resources available to minimize the context switching - The Cray T3 used
basic Alpha processors (a LOT of them). The UNICOS kernel on top of the
microkernel distributed the load by puting only one or two drivers per
processor.
These drivers appear (I didn't get to see the source) to perform full context
switches for each interrupt/read/write/open/close/ioctl. The key here is that
the processor really doesn't have to do anything else. Cache memory remains
hot, and nothing is delayed.
User applications run on totally different CPUs (out of 1048 processors, 40
of them might be OS processors, out of the 40 there might be 20 that are
filesystem/device drivers, the others handle user batch scheduling
scheduling, resource allocation and system calls. 8 to 10 additional ones
are used for "command" processors (not handling batch jobs) used for
complers, interactive access, and non-parallel utilties. The rest are
"application processors" and are dedicated to batch and/or parallel programs.
I have never really seen a generic processor that could run user mode
drivers very well - even the PDP-11s could not do that well for certain
devices, and they only had 8 registers to save/restore.
I would think that user mode drivers would need (ideally):
1. multiple user register sets in hardware - at least (5 to 10).
2. near zero context switching - calling for the MMU to support (5 to 10)
simultaneous contexts.
3. use one control register to switch between user register sets and MMU
contexts.
4. multiple cache memory modules ... 10 desirable, one per register set.
5. multiple processing levels (almost every processor has 2, Intel has 4)
The 5-10 register sets/MMU sets is based on:
1. disk driver
1. filesystem driver
1. video driver
1. keyboard driver
1. system call/user process
If more drivers are loaded/active then you would want more or you get into
scheduling collisions with context save/restore overhead. It would also
be desirable to have one for the system call/scheduler to eliminate that
overhead too, but IMHO that one can be shared with the user process.
Context switching time should be very nearly equivalent to a subroutine call
then - select the context, select the entry point, switch. Any parameter
passing could be almost the same as a subroutine parameter + a cache miss.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: [email protected]
Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
At 03:05 AM 1/8/03 -0800, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>I have pissed off everyone.
>While searching for the exact line of where things are black and white.
>Nobody cares enough to help clear the air.
>Nobody cares to pursue any of the existing binary modules.
Well, Andre, you haven't pissed me off in any way, sir. You have raised
some very interesting questions, questions that need to be answered if
Linux is going to continue to live in the real world. Real world, as
opposed to the Utopia (or Utopias) that some contributor here would like to
see.
This is for the rest of you:
I'm not knocking the sincerity of those contributors who have made their
views known on this subject, nor do I want to disabuse them of their
dream. I want them, though, to recognize the dream for what it is, goals
that would be nice to achieve but not a reality no matter how much they may
wish it so. Goals that have merit, as long as they don't become a
straitjacket to making Linux useful to its users.
The concept of a kernel "tainted" by binary-only modules was, as I recall
the prior threads on the subject, was focused on preventing developers from
"spinning their wheels" trying to debug a black box for which no source is
available and which may have unintended and astonishing effects on the rest
of the kernel. In this goal, the Linux Developer Community has followed in
the footsteps of Microsoft Corporation, in wanting to focus their support
efforts on situations where the variables are minimized.
--> The whole purpose of Microsoft's Windows Hardware Certification Lab
(WHCL) process was to ensure that hardware and the drivers that come with
them meet certain minimum performance and configuration parameters,
reducing Microsoft's technical support triage efforts.
--> The whole purpose of the "tainted" kernel indication was to ensure
that a problem report involving black boxes indicate that black boxes are
involved, reducing the Linux Developer Community's technical support triage
efforts.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The contributors who champion "free (as in speech) software" must recognize
that the concept of intellectual property is a global concept, not just the
child of one country such as the United States. Limiting customer choice
by blocking closed-source binary-only drivers only serves to make Gnu/Linux
(ok, Stallman?) less useful to our customers because it does eliminate a
choice. I applaud the goal of emphasizing open-source drivers where open
source is possible. Just as the holder of a hammer tends to look at all
problems as nails, some of the contributors here appear to think that
open-source is the be-all and end-all -- but the real world of intellectual
property royalties and cutthroat competition sometimes makes open source
impractical or impossible.
I want to make this clear: if the customer requirements are such that s/he
need to use hardware with a closed-source driver, then it is the customer's
choice to incorporate said hardware and drivers. The problem that some
contributors to this discussion on LKML are trying to create an environment
that is specifically intended to rob the customer of that choice in the
pursuit of a dream, a dream that WILL force that customer to a different
solution other than Linux.
That's bad for Linux, that's bad for GNU, that's bad for the customer the
Linux user.
You DO believe that we should be looking out for the Linux user, don't you?
Educate. Don't dictate.
OK, now the coffee should be ready, and I can medicate myself.
Stephen Satchell
--
The human mind treats a new idea the way the body treats a strange
protein: it rejects it. -- P. Medawar
This posting is for entertainment purposes only; it is not a legal opinion.
> im working on GPLd support for USB under W95.
I think you just hosed your "Freedom is bliss" arguments.
WTF have GPLed drivers for Win95 got to do with free software. If you
want freedom please work on the Hurd. You are wasting your time working
on GPLed DOS drivers.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Philip Dodd wrote:
> > im working on GPLd support for USB under W95.
>
> I think you just hosed your "Freedom is bliss" arguments.
>
> WTF have GPLed drivers for Win95 got to do with free software. If you
> want freedom please work on the Hurd. You are wasting your time working
> on GPLed DOS drivers.
Is it not *his* time? And his evaluation of its value?
This reminds me of woman's lib folks who fight for the right of women to
do anything they want as long as long as it isn't stay home and be a
housewife. Thank you, I prefer the taste of my open source software
without the bitter tang of political correctness.
--
bill davidsen <[email protected]>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Paul Jakma writes:
>And frankly, courts in most parts of the world will look at community
>practice as a (slightly weaker than a court case) precedent [...]
Since you imply that you are familiar with "courts in most
parts of the world", I'd be interested if you could identify, and,
ideally, quote the court decisions or laws that define this "community
practice as a (slightly weaker than court case) precedent" doctrine,
presumably some kind of extension of stare decisis that I haven't
heard of before.
Apparently, findlaw hasn't heard of it either. "community
practice" only turned up one clearly inapplicable hit (in quotation
marks so as not to turn up every page containing the words "community"
and "practices") about "studies performed in community practice
settings involving thousands of patients." In comparison,
"contributory infringement" turned up 75 hits, 129 hits for "stare
decisis", 246 hits for "court precedent." I don't see anything
relevant from poking around google, but there were a lot of hits.
Anyhow, as far as I can tell, no copyright owner other than
Linus has given permission to use their code with proprietary modules.
If you want to give people permission to use _your_ code under terms
essentially identical to the LGPL (since you can always write wrapper
functions) then feel free to state that you are granting that
permission, or, perhaps more simply, LGPL your contributions.
I'm not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice.
Also, if you do not answer my question clearly and honestly or
I otherwise think you've danced around it, then I may not be able to
prioritize any more time to you respond further. That does not imply
agreement.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
I'm essentially paraphrasing an opinion I had access to at one time, from
one of the largest IP law specialist firms in our part of the world.
I'm not a lawyer myself, but that does convey accurately the sense of what
I was told. I suspect the US may be more 'much weaker' than 'slightly
weaker', given the context of the original.
And that's about all I can think of to say about this. Please don't think
I'm being evasive, it's just that I perhaps sounded surer that I should,
and I certainly omitted the IANAL. Also, the opinion I'm paraphrasing was
mostly not about software copyright, so this is about all it said that was
relevant.
One thing I do have in mind is to dig around in the headers etc. and see
what I can find as to (implicit or explicit) license declarations. That
may not be a priority, as I have no intention of writing non-GPL kernel
code myself anytime soon, I'm more curious and would like to see the issue
sorted out.
Andrew
--On Sunday, January 12, 2003 01:27:10 -0800 "Adam J. Richter"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Jakma writes:
>> And frankly, courts in most parts of the world will look at community
>> practice as a (slightly weaker than a court case) precedent [...]
>
> Since you imply that you are familiar with "courts in most
> parts of the world", I'd be interested if you could identify, and,
> ideally, quote the court decisions or laws that define this "community
> practice as a (slightly weaker than court case) precedent" doctrine,
> presumably some kind of extension of stare decisis that I haven't
> heard of before.
>
> Apparently, findlaw hasn't heard of it either. "community
> practice" only turned up one clearly inapplicable hit (in quotation
> marks so as not to turn up every page containing the words "community"
> and "practices") about "studies performed in community practice
> settings involving thousands of patients." In comparison,
> "contributory infringement" turned up 75 hits, 129 hits for "stare
> decisis", 246 hits for "court precedent." I don't see anything
> relevant from poking around google, but there were a lot of hits.
>
> Anyhow, as far as I can tell, no copyright owner other than
> Linus has given permission to use their code with proprietary modules.
> If you want to give people permission to use _your_ code under terms
> essentially identical to the LGPL (since you can always write wrapper
> functions) then feel free to state that you are granting that
> permission, or, perhaps more simply, LGPL your contributions.
>
> I'm not a lawyer. This is not intended as legal advice.
>
> Also, if you do not answer my question clearly and honestly or
> I otherwise think you've danced around it, then I may not be able to
> prioritize any more time to you respond further. That does not imply
> agreement.
>
> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
> [email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
>
>
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> Paul Jakma writes:
> >And frankly, courts in most parts of the world will look at community
> >practice as a (slightly weaker than a court case) precedent [...]
i didnt write what you have quoted.
(do you have msgid if i did? i dont remember writing it, and i dont
see any mail with that subject in my sent-mail)
> Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
> [email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] [email protected] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to [email protected]
Fortune:
Anarchy may not be a better form of government, but it's better than no
government at all.
On Tue, 07 Jan 2003, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Matthias Andree <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> Until the manufacturers start providing good quality supported drivers
> >> for their hardware, binary or source, linux will stay exactly where it
> >> is now; a server room tool and a hobbyists playground.
>
> >> I for one think thats a real shame
>
> >Only that you can't trust in the el-cheapo vendors claiming Linux
> >support, and an independent certification is needed (not only for Linux,
> >for the *BSDs as well). Without a trusted certification, some crooks may
> >try to claim Linux support and it won't quite work out.
>
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001-35/0559.html
>
> Dated 5. September 2001.
Close, but I hadn't meant signing in mind, but something like "we write
we support Linux" when they only have 2.0 binary-only modules. I want
the term "Linux compatible" to be certified, not soft- or hardware per
se. Signing drivers is difficult, because of the said problems, and
because a faithful and trustworthy vendor then has to have his stuff
re-certified over and over.
I you happened to read the German c't magazine 1/2003 about RAID
hardware and Linux, or the 2/2003 edition about TV cards, then look at
the pertinent sections to know what I mean.
The other thing (Linus labs) is already there: module tainting...
On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Paul Jakma wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>> Paul Jakma writes:
>> >And frankly, courts in most parts of the world will look at community
>> >practice as a (slightly weaker than a court case) precedent [...]
>i didnt write what you have quoted.
A thousand pardons, sir! Andrew McGregor actually said it in
message-ID <[email protected]>, and he has
responded to my posting about it.
I'm especially sorry about this given the particular statement
that I misattributed to you. Please accept my contrite apologies.
Adam J. Richter __ ______________ 575 Oroville Road
[email protected] \ / Milpitas, 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."
Hi!
> > In very semplicistic words:
> > In 2.5/2.6 kernels, non GPL modules have a big
> > penalty, because they cannot create their own queue, but have to use a default
> > one.
>
> I may be showing my ignorance here (won't be the first time) but this makes
> me wonder if Linux could provide a way to do "user level drivers". I.e.,
> drivers which ran in kernel mode but in the context of a process and had
> to talk to the real kernel via pipes or whatever. It's a fair amount of
> plumbing but could have the advantage of being a more stable interface
> for the drivers.
You don't need kernel mode to touch hw.
> If you think about it, drivers are more or less open/close/read/write/ioctl.
> They need kernel privileges to do their thing but don't need (and shouldn't
> have) access to all the guts of the kernel.
>
> Can any well traveled driver people see this working or is it nuts?
Well, nbd was originally created just for that.
Pavel
--
Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net.
What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?