your raid driver requires kernel 2.2.18
your sound card driver requires kernel 2.4.19
your network adapter driver requires kernel 2.2.21
the drivers has to be open sourced.
It is not possible in all cases. I would like to see clean and concise interfaces published. It would help create drivers for multiple kernel versions. Like driver for 2.2, 2.4.0-2.4.9, 2.4.10-2.4.25 etc..
Well it's not going to happen any time soon.
The SCO case will have some far reaching effects if a sufficiently bone-headed judge rules in certain ways. One of the cornerstones of SCO's "case" is their theory on derivative works: notably, JFS. JFS is in the same category of kernel module as AFS which Linus references.
Basically you are saying Linus is in the same boat as SCO;))
Now, imagine that I publish a book whose plot, characters, etc. are those of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. My legal defense, when sued, is that "It's a clean room implementation. I never read HPatSS. I read book reviews, talked to folks who had read it, etc."
I don't think "implementation" is applicable to books at all. Books and software are very different. In case of books ideas and implemetation considered the same. Well, some of books have no ideas - but nice implementation;)) and it matters. For software
implementation usually is hidden under the hood.
Copyright does NOT apply to concepts. It applies to each and every physical image of something. When an author links that disk file, known as a module with GPLed code, that file becomes GPLed too (else they choose not to engage that market at all). It would be impossible to write something as complex as a binary module without THE AUTHOR ever testing it. (So, forget arguments about how YOU are allowed to create non-distributable GPL abominations. This starts with the author.)
We confusing issues, right? For linking issues there is a LGPL.
In case of kernel modules (on-topic) you may not link them at all. You create clear-room implementation of kernel interfaces (they are just concepts) and everything else may be proprietary.
GPL is about source code modification - if no code was modified from GPLed sources - then new code not under GPL.
So anyway, in the larger sense, I agree with you that binaries ought to be allowed. However, I disagree that there is any question where the lines are drawn; if you use GPL code in your stuff, or statically link to it, your code must be GPL. If it doesn't, it doesn't have to be. That's really not that complicated, assuming you paid attention when you wrote the thing.
I completely agree.
But for some reason Linus believes that anything that uses interface to kernel is derived work then and should be GPLed...
Is that seriously the reason people thought 100MHz was the limit? I've actually never heard people say that there was any limit on processor speed at all, was there any better reason that 100MHz was thought of as a limit?
The reason was that at the time fastest transistors could switch with 200Mhz speed maximum...
Plus, remember high school? Everyone will gravitate to an area and stake out turf.
Funny, There are a lot of schools abroad where one do not have any personal space at all (like locker). One just come everyday with all stuff needed for today and leaves with it, which sucks.
But it seems quite clear from this document that "Windows" by itself is a trademark and will be defended as such.
Yes - from USPTO
Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: HEALTHCARE SERVICES FOR PATIENTS AFFLICTED WITH DEMENTIA. FIRST USE: 20020121. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020121
Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S: body care products, namely, skin moisturizer, lotion, creams, oils, powders and soaps all for the hands and body; bath oils, bath gels, and sun care products, namely, a sunscreen and sunblock. FIRST USE: 19990211. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990211
IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: luggage, namely, tote bags. FIRST USE: 19990211. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990211
And of course bazillion 'windows' by Microsoft in different areas...
Wake up, the enemy is not SCO alone, and their target is not Linux per se, it's the Free Software movement and it's legal tool, the GNU GPL.
Wake up, BSD does not covered by GPL and does not have any relation to Free Software movement whatever it means (Free Software name is taken by RMS for FSF).
BSD4.4 Lite, the legally unencumbered public version of AT&T's code.
Maybe it's a poor choice of words... But it was not version of AT&T code. Everything was rewritten from scratch and mostly it happened before litigation.
What about a change in copyright law? Honest question.
If they want to open litigation on old issues - then I believe court should use older law. And BTW source code in question was deleted from BSD anyway.
If they say that there is some new code got into BSD from SYSV then court should use uptodate copyright law.
OS X contains BSD code. You can find proof of that anywhere. SCO claims they own BSD. BSD is a lot more than just a kernel.
SCO does not claim they own BSD (yet). Anyway BSD in 1994 contained 3 files which were copyrighted by AT&T. Then BSD ditched those files and it is clean since then.
OS X picked up some BSD code which is clean I think. It would be impossible to find anything in source close to original AT&T code...
And again if SCO would like to throw settlement it means its use of BSD code in SYSV is dubious.
You have obviously never installed a freeBSD system.
The FIRST thing that I do after installing from a release is to cvsup the latest sources.
This requires me to rebuild the world.
From my experience with freebsd, well over 75% of admins do this. And the other (less than) 25% probably don't even patch, so they won't care anyway.
Why do you do it?
Just to have something new and shiny in your hands?
In case of production system one have to use RELEASE, as it was thorough tested. The need for upgrade arise in case of security issues or performance improvements. And then one have to recompile only parts affected.
So far I do not know anybody who rebuild the world for production system.
In case one tracking CURRENT and it's definitely not a production - it may be some support system, though, it's just easier to cvsup and make world.
And just revert back in case something went wrong - it happens...
A correctly set up Linux machine can be exactly as stable as a correctly set up BSD server. I mean "exactly" to be literal, as either one will run literally forever unless its hardware dies or it loses power.
Very often you have to spend a lot of time to setup Linux correctly. And second thing is upgradability, which is a mess in a Linux world.
Slashdot Mirror
your sound card driver requires kernel 2.4.19
your network adapter driver requires kernel 2.2.21
the drivers has to be open sourced.
It is not possible in all cases. I would like to see clean and concise interfaces published. It would help create drivers for multiple kernel versions. Like driver for 2.2, 2.4.0-2.4.9, 2.4.10-2.4.25 etc.. Well it's not going to happen any time soon.
Basically you are saying Linus is in the same boat as SCO ;))
Nice ;))
I don't think "implementation" is applicable to books at all. Books and software are very different. In case of books ideas and implemetation considered the same. Well, some of books have no ideas - but nice implementation ;)) and it matters. For software
implementation usually is hidden under the hood.
We confusing issues, right? For linking issues there is a LGPL.
In case of kernel modules (on-topic) you may not link them at all. You create clear-room implementation of kernel interfaces (they are just concepts) and everything else may be proprietary. GPL is about source code modification - if no code was modified from GPLed sources - then new code not under GPL.
I completely agree.
But for some reason Linus believes that anything that uses interface to kernel is derived work then and should be GPLed...
The reason was that at the time fastest transistors could switch with 200Mhz speed maximum...
You should clarify things BEFORE you are hired. Usually (if it's not a sweatshop) companies allow to take a day off anytime you need.
Funny, There are a lot of schools abroad where one do not have any personal space at all (like locker). One just come everyday with all stuff needed for today and leaves with it, which sucks.
What do you mean by "your sign"? Zodiac sign? Then it's not 2000 and it's not cool.
Something else?
Perhaps Red Ass Hat?
Yes - from USPTO
Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: HEALTHCARE SERVICES FOR PATIENTS AFFLICTED WITH DEMENTIA. FIRST USE: 20020121. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020121
Word Mark WINDOWS
Goods and Services IC 003. US 001 004 006 050 051 052. G & S: body care products, namely, skin moisturizer, lotion, creams, oils, powders and soaps all for the hands and body; bath oils, bath gels, and sun care products, namely, a sunscreen and sunblock. FIRST USE: 19990211. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990211 IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: luggage, namely, tote bags. FIRST USE: 19990211. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990211
And of course bazillion 'windows' by Microsoft in different areas...
No, it's MS Windows(tm)
Because RedHAT wants to restrict use of Fedora name to themselves.
Wake up, BSD does not covered by GPL and does not have any relation to Free Software movement whatever it means (Free Software name is taken by RMS for FSF).
So, where did you get Windows for DEC Rainbow?
Looks like you envious
well, settlement is a contract, right? I think contract law may be applied...
Maybe it's a poor choice of words... But it was not version of AT&T code. Everything was rewritten from scratch and mostly it happened before litigation.
But they bought Classic SCO!!
If they want to open litigation on old issues - then I believe court should use older law. And BTW source code in question was deleted from BSD anyway.
If they say that there is some new code got into BSD from SYSV then court should use uptodate copyright law.
looks like a job for the governator.
Job for Terminator
SCO does not claim they own BSD (yet). Anyway BSD in 1994 contained 3 files which were copyrighted by AT&T. Then BSD ditched those files and it is clean since then.
OS X picked up some BSD code which is clean I think. It would be impossible to find anything in source close to original AT&T code...
And again if SCO would like to throw settlement it means its use of BSD code in SYSV is dubious.
Why do you do it?
Just to have something new and shiny in your hands?
In case of production system one have to use RELEASE, as it was thorough tested. The need for upgrade arise in case of security issues or performance improvements. And then one have to recompile only parts affected.
So far I do not know anybody who rebuild the world for production system.
In case one tracking CURRENT and it's definitely not a production - it may be some support system, though, it's just easier to cvsup and make world. And just revert back in case something went wrong - it happens...
Very often you have to spend a lot of time to setup Linux correctly. And second thing is upgradability, which is a mess in a Linux world.
YOU DO HAVE RAISES!!!
Incredible!!!