> > > > Code created by access to specs that were not allowed to be published in
> > > > GPL form by someone who wants to remain anonymous.
> > >
> > > That anonymous person may have problems if they signed NDA.
> > >
> > > I don't think they did, they even list the sources:
> > >
> > > * The embedded controller on ThinkPad laptops has a non-standard
> > > interface, * where LPC channel 3 of the H8S EC chip is hooked up to IO
> > > ports * 0x1600-0x161F and implements (a special case of) the H8S LPC
> > > protocol. * The EC LPC interface provides various system management
> > > services (currently * known: battery information and accelerometer
> > > readouts). This driver * provides access and mutual exclusion for the EC
> > > interface.
> > > *
> > > * The LPC protocol and terminology is documented here:
> > > * "H8S/2104B Group Hardware Manual",
> > > *
> > > http://documentation.renesas.com/eng/products/mpumcu/rej09b0300_2140bhm.pdf
> > >
> > > H8S chip seems to be documented.
> > Hmm, the EC is not directly used, but ACPI functions of the HP device are
> > used.
> > For the HP ACPI device: the ACPI functions can *very easily* be re-engineered
> > (which is common for all laptop_acpi.ko drivers):
> > ALRD -> is used by the driver to read out registers of the accelerometer
> > ALWR -> is used by the driver to write a registers of the accelerometer
> > BTW: HP likes to have support for their device.
> >
> > The acceleromter chip itself is docuemented in detail here:
> > http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/12094/lis3lv02dl.pdf
> >
> > I also do not see any concerns.
> > Greg: Can you please add this one or explain in more detail what else you like
> > to see to get this integerated.
>
> If you, or anyone else, writes a new driver from the published
> documents, that driver can be accepted. It can not be based on the
> existing code written by Shem in any form.
Can you detail what "published" means?
Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
known sources such as wikipedia.
Sources on sourceforge.net seem published-enough to me, and if you
insist they can't be used, you should provide some reasons...
[And no, just calling it "tainted" is not enough.]
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 10:40:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > > > Code created by access to specs that were not allowed to be published in
> > > > > GPL form by someone who wants to remain anonymous.
> > > >
> > > > That anonymous person may have problems if they signed NDA.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think they did, they even list the sources:
> > > >
> > > > * The embedded controller on ThinkPad laptops has a non-standard
> > > > interface, * where LPC channel 3 of the H8S EC chip is hooked up to IO
> > > > ports * 0x1600-0x161F and implements (a special case of) the H8S LPC
> > > > protocol. * The EC LPC interface provides various system management
> > > > services (currently * known: battery information and accelerometer
> > > > readouts). This driver * provides access and mutual exclusion for the EC
> > > > interface.
> > > > *
> > > > * The LPC protocol and terminology is documented here:
> > > > * "H8S/2104B Group Hardware Manual",
> > > > *
> > > > http://documentation.renesas.com/eng/products/mpumcu/rej09b0300_2140bhm.pdf
> > > >
> > > > H8S chip seems to be documented.
> > > Hmm, the EC is not directly used, but ACPI functions of the HP device are
> > > used.
> > > For the HP ACPI device: the ACPI functions can *very easily* be re-engineered
> > > (which is common for all laptop_acpi.ko drivers):
> > > ALRD -> is used by the driver to read out registers of the accelerometer
> > > ALWR -> is used by the driver to write a registers of the accelerometer
> > > BTW: HP likes to have support for their device.
> > >
> > > The acceleromter chip itself is docuemented in detail here:
> > > http://www.st.com/stonline/products/literature/ds/12094/lis3lv02dl.pdf
> > >
> > > I also do not see any concerns.
> > > Greg: Can you please add this one or explain in more detail what else you like
> > > to see to get this integerated.
> >
> > If you, or anyone else, writes a new driver from the published
> > documents, that driver can be accepted. It can not be based on the
> > existing code written by Shem in any form.
>
> Can you detail what "published" means?
Published in a way that has NOTHING to do with these source files.
> Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
> place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
> known sources such as wikipedia.
If the wikipedia information was written based on these source files,
no, we can't use that, sorry.
> Sources on sourceforge.net seem published-enough to me, and if you
> insist they can't be used, you should provide some reasons...
>
> [And no, just calling it "tainted" is not enough.]
{sigh}
Again, for the last time:
- this code was written by an anonymous person, using documents or
information that was obtained and used in a manner that was not
legal according to their employment agreement.
- because of this, we can not use this code, because we KNOW the
information was obtained in a improper manner.
- so, to get something like this into the kernel, we need to rewrite
the code, using information obtained LEGALLY from either the
manufacturer of the chips or computers, or from another TOTALLY
SEPARATE location.
Does that help explain this?
thanks,
greg k-h
> > > If you, or anyone else, writes a new driver from the published
> > > documents, that driver can be accepted. It can not be based on the
> > > existing code written by Shem in any form.
> >
> > Can you detail what "published" means?
>
> Published in a way that has NOTHING to do with these source files.
>
> > Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
> > place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
> > known sources such as wikipedia.
>
> If the wikipedia information was written based on these source files,
> no, we can't use that, sorry.
How do I know?
> > Sources on sourceforge.net seem published-enough to me, and if you
> > insist they can't be used, you should provide some reasons...
> >
> > [And no, just calling it "tainted" is not enough.]
>
> {sigh}
>
> Again, for the last time:
> - this code was written by an anonymous person, using documents or
> information that was obtained and used in a manner that was not
> legal according to their employment agreement.
This code is written by anonymous person. He may have used documents
improperly, but I see no signs of that, and don't see why I should
believe you saying so.
If have proof of that, you should talk to sourceforge to take that
code down... or probably their employer should ask sourceforge to do
that.
The documents are on the web from more than year now, on
well-known. That seems to indicate that your theory is not true.
> - because of this, we can not use this code, because we KNOW the
> information was obtained in a improper manner.
Whole wikipedia is written by "anonymous" people. Does that mean that
all information in wikipedia was obtained in a improper manner?
> - so, to get something like this into the kernel, we need to rewrite
> the code, using information obtained LEGALLY from either the
> manufacturer of the chips or computers, or from another TOTALLY
> SEPARATE location.
I'm LEGALLY obtaining the information from sourceforge.net. That is
rather well-known, and non-anonymous source. They continue to publish
this information.
> Does that help explain this?
Unfortunately, no :-(.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 11:40:06PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > > > If you, or anyone else, writes a new driver from the published
> > > > documents, that driver can be accepted. It can not be based on the
> > > > existing code written by Shem in any form.
> > >
> > > Can you detail what "published" means?
> >
> > Published in a way that has NOTHING to do with these source files.
> >
> > > Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
> > > place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
> > > known sources such as wikipedia.
> >
> > If the wikipedia information was written based on these source files,
> > no, we can't use that, sorry.
>
> How do I know?
Unfortunatly, you can't, so don't use it.
> > > Sources on sourceforge.net seem published-enough to me, and if you
> > > insist they can't be used, you should provide some reasons...
> > >
> > > [And no, just calling it "tainted" is not enough.]
> >
> > {sigh}
> >
> > Again, for the last time:
> > - this code was written by an anonymous person, using documents or
> > information that was obtained and used in a manner that was not
> > legal according to their employment agreement.
>
> This code is written by anonymous person. He may have used documents
> improperly, but I see no signs of that, and don't see why I should
> believe you saying so.
>
> If have proof of that, you should talk to sourceforge to take that
> code down... or probably their employer should ask sourceforge to do
> that.
>
> The documents are on the web from more than year now, on
> well-known. That seems to indicate that your theory is not true.
Yes, I know this is true, for a variety of reasons of what people
(including the individual in question) told me in private.
And I'm not going to go around asking for code to be taken down, as I'm
not the one whose contract was invalidated.
All I can say is that I can not accept such code into the Linux kernel
as it is known to be created in an illegal manner.
This has been discussed with both the Linux Foundations lawyers
(actually it was OSDL at the time), and with Novell's lawyers.
And as a Novell employee, you aren't allowed to put this code into the
kernel either, sorry, that's the rule we were told.
> > - so, to get something like this into the kernel, we need to rewrite
> > the code, using information obtained LEGALLY from either the
> > manufacturer of the chips or computers, or from another TOTALLY
> > SEPARATE location.
>
> I'm LEGALLY obtaining the information from sourceforge.net. That is
> rather well-known, and non-anonymous source. They continue to publish
> this information.
If the information there is known to be posted in a manner that was
obtained illegally, it does not make the fact that you take it any more
"legal".
Ok, once again:
- we know this code was created illegally.
- that is why we (Linux Foundation / Novell) can not accept such code.
If some other company wants to step up, and put their "Signed-off-by:"
on it, I will be glad to have the Linux Foundation lawyers contact them
to find out if this is now acceptable, and from what background they
have gotten the information.
So can we please just drop this? Or do you want me to point you at the
lawyers?
thanks,
greg k-h
I've been staying off the public discussion to avoid fuelling the flame;
my position has been stated earlier and in private communication.
But at this point I must go on record:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> - this code was written by an anonymous person, using documents or
> information that was obtained and used in a manner that was not
> legal according to their employment agreement.
The above statement is false. I have never had access to non-public ThinkPad
specifications as part of my employment, nor have I been employed
by anyone who (to my knowledge) even possesses non-public ThinkPad
specifications.
I have contacted Greg KH privately in an effort to clarify the source
of his false impression.
Shem
Hi!
> > > > Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
> > > > place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
> > > > known sources such as wikipedia.
> > >
> > > If the wikipedia information was written based on these source files,
> > > no, we can't use that, sorry.
> >
> > How do I know?
>
> Unfortunatly, you can't, so don't use it.
Not being able to use wikipedia is little strong, don't you think so?
What's next?
> > This code is written by anonymous person. He may have used documents
> > improperly, but I see no signs of that, and don't see why I should
> > believe you saying so.
> >
> > If have proof of that, you should talk to sourceforge to take that
> > code down... or probably their employer should ask sourceforge to do
> > that.
> >
> > The documents are on the web from more than year now, on
> > well-known. That seems to indicate that your theory is not true.
>
> Yes, I know this is true, for a variety of reasons of what people
> (including the individual in question) told me in private.
Are you saying Shem told you he violated some contracts?
Ok, so can you tell us the details, so that we can evaluate this
ourselves, and (more importantly) so that he can defend himself? He
seems willing to point where specific pieces of code come from.
> And I'm not going to go around asking for code to be taken down, as I'm
> not the one whose contract was invalidated.
Right. So why do you care if this code goes into kernel? Your contract
is not violated, and neither me nor you signed any contract preventing
us from putting that code into kernel.
If you know the details, can you tell us which/whose contract is being
violated here? Maybe we can just get permission of those parties. Or
maybe your information is wrong...
> Ok, once again:
> - we know this code was created illegally.
If you know this, please share details.
> So can we please just drop this? Or do you want me to point you at the
> lawyers?
I'll talk to lawyers if I have to. I'd like to understand this.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html