Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bodo Eggert]

David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> 
> That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.

>> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
>> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
>> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
> 
> No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total
> ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh.

So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down.
-- 
Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF
verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.

http://david.woodhou.se/why-not-spf.html

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 07:44:24PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> > 
> > That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do
> > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?
> 
> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> 
> >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
> > 
> > No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total
> > ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh.
> 
> So everybody at McDrive should wait for five minutes to let it cool down.

Don't drink and drive just got another application =)


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

RE: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Schwartz]

> The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.

Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.

70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
example:
http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm

Can we stop repeating a ridiculous myth? Coffee is supposed to be served
hot, very hot, hot enough to cause third-degree burns in seconds. Yes,
really.

Don't spill coffee on yourself or you could wind up in the hospital with
severe burns. This is a simple fact even if coffee is served at the ideal
serving temperature.

The fact that coffee is dangerous means that it is a virtual certainty that
dozens of people will be seriously burned by coffee every year. If this
scares or bothers you, don't drink coffee.

>1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and

Right, 175 is the generally-recommended serving temperature and will also
produce third-degree burns almost immediately. Coffee served *anywhere*
inside the generally-accepted serving range will cause third degree burns
almost immediately. Consumer studies show that people generally like their
coffee more the hotter you serve it, with 190-200 degrees (the practical
maximum) consistently winning over lower temperature ranges.

Car manufacturers make cars that don't just go "fast" but *dangerously* fast
(100 to 120 MPH), a speed that can result in death almost immediately.

>2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
>had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
>mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.

Right, coffee is dangerous. It has always been and always will be if it's
served at the proper temperature. Thousands of people hurt themselves skiing
every year, yet the resorts stay open.

The danger of burns is inherent to the serving of hot beverages. If you
don't want to take that risk, don't order hot beverages.

How many people die each year in car accidents? Is this in any way evidence
that the car manufacturers are doing anything wrong?

>yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged.  but it's time
>to find another example to use as the evidence, ok?

This is a *perfect* example. The tort system is meant to correct wrongdoing.
McDonald's served coffee at the temperature customers prefer it, in holders
that were perfectly suitable for beverages served at that temperature. The
justice system made them pay because someone was *hurt*, not because anyone
did something *wrong*.

http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html

DS

RE: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Brian Beattie]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> 
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
> 
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the
> preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
> example:
> http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
> http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm

Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the
SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F.
-- 
Brian Beattie
Firmware Engineer
APCON, Inc.
BrianB@apcon.com

RE: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Schwartz]

> On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 12:14 -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> > 
> > Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
> > 
> > 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 
> 165-190F is the
> > preferred serving range. I can cite source after source for this. For
> > example:
> > http://www.bunn.com/pages/coffeebasics/cb6holding.html
> > http://www.millcreekcoffee.com/holding.htm
> 
> Do you actually read your citations? Your cited sources both give the
> SERVING temp as 155 - 175 F.

The conversion was incorrect. 70C is about 160F, and 55C is about 130F. As I said in the correction, every number is correct in the unit it was first posted in, and all the claims are correct.

160F is the mininum recommended serving temperature and 165-190F is the preferred range. 130F is a ludicrously low serving temperature for coffee. 180F seems to be about ideal.

Stella Liebeck's lawyers argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140F. This is no different from arguing that knives should be dull.

DS

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 381 bytes --]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:14:54 PST, David Schwartz said:
> 
> > The recommendet _serving_ temperature for coffe is 55 °C or below.
> 
> Nonsense! 55C (100F) is ludicrously low for coffee.
> 
> 70C (125F) is the *minimum* recommended serving temperature. 165-190F is the

100F == 37C
125F == 52C

55C == 131F
70C == 158F

Yes, 100F *is* ludicrously low for coffee.  :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Binary Drivers

[James Porter]

I think some kernel developers take to much responsibility, is there a bug in a
binary driver? Send it upstream and explain to the user that it's a closed
source driver and is up to said company to fix it.

For what it's worth, I don't see any problem with binary drivers from hardware
manufacturers. 

Just because nvidia makes a closed source driver doesn't mean that we can't also
create an open source driver(limited functionality, reverse engineered,
etc.,etc.). I firmly believe that the choice should be up to the user and/or
distro. I'm not a kernel dev, I don't know c...but I understand the concepts and
I should have the right to do what I want with this GPL code. Restricting me
only frustrates me. Should the default be open source, definitely; should binary
drivers be blocked from running on a linux kernel...certainly not.

I personally like nvidia's products, they have spent a lot of money in R&D. One
example is SLI, if their spec was open what would stop ATI from stealing their
work(patents?, gotta love those). Personally I think nvidia has excellent
support for linux, I have actually convinced people to use linux(desktop and
server) just by showing them beryl with the nvidia beta drivers.

Lastly I think it's ridiculous to create,diplay, and distribute "Free" as in
freedom and "Free" as in cost software only to later consider limiting my
freedom...want to know why a lot of large companies don't support
linux...exactly threads like this. Why make the effort to use "Free" software
only to have the rug pulled out from under you. This is what makes the BSDs so
attractive.

Re: Binary Drivers

[Marek Wawrzyczny]

Dear Linux Kernel ML,

I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with 
the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.

While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and 
drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into 
developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to 
have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support 
for some of their products altogether.

Take the high-end graphic cards that are prevalent in most of today's 
home/SOHO hardware- desktops and laptops. Would I be wrong in saying that the 
Linux market share in this market is no more than 5%?
These companies have already demonstrated that the support they provide is 
proportional to the market share.

The open source driver development is promising but it has been mentioned 
several times that the project is undermanned and the vendors are not 
forthcoming with the necessary information.
My hardware as it stands today is still not working with the open-source 
drivers. Perhaps this is the case of PEBCAK and not the open-source drivers 
per se but with a 1-4 hour turnaround to test a new version of the r300 
driver it is not a small effort on my part. Still, I'm eagerly awaiting the 
day that I'll be able to use an open-source driver that is on par with the 
ati one.

The bottom line is that the proposed 1st Jan 2008 dead line is unlikely to 
make any corporations tremble. It is likely to be the day when I will be no 
longer able to run the latest version of the kernel.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for reading my email and on your work on the 
fantastic work and community that Linux is.
I hope you will take this user and others like me under consideration when 
making the final decision on whether or not to include the proposed patch and 
whether to undertake work on code that will prevent binary drivers from 
loading.

Warmest regards,

Marek Wawrzyczny

Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Hannu Savolainen]

Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> Dear Linux Kernel ML,
>
> I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with 
> the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
>
> While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and 
> drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into 
> developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to 
> have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support 
> for some of their products altogether.
>   
As a developer of some "closed source" drivers I can confirm that this 
is exactly the case. I would never consider open sourcing my work just 
because somebody is pointing pistol to my neck. I would leave the whole 
IT business and start doing something else rather than accept this kind 
of mafia-like negotiation methods.

For a professional developer of any software the decision of open 
sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems 
because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway. 
However a professional developer can release software under GPL only if 
it's considered invaluable or if there is some way to guarantee 
sufficient income. Releasing something under GPL without a guaranteed 
backup plan is like jumping from an airplane without parasuit. If 
somebody forces me to jump form an airplane without a parasuit then what 
would this be called?

> The bottom line is that the proposed 1st Jan 2008 dead line is unlikely to 
> make any corporations tremble. It is likely to be the day when I will be no 
> longer able to run the latest version of the kernel.
To us this decision would mean that after Jan 1 2008 we will be out of 
business (at least in the Linux market). Due to the nature of our 
product (kernel level sound API) there is no alternative way to get USB 
working. We could try to develop an alternative API that is user land 
based but this is not going to work. We could also develop an artifical 
user land driver that would require application->kernel->deamon->kernel 
type looping which kills performance and causes massive latencies but it 
doesn't make any sense.

Our alternatives are to leave the Linux market or to release our code 
under GPL. GPLing means that we will have to give to the major Linux 
companies full rights to do whatever they like with our code. They will 
have complete freedom to adapt our product for their purposes and to 
sell it for profit. There is no law that would require them to pay 
anything to us. There is also no way we could compete with them because 
the current device/module model makes it completely impossible to ship 
precompiled binary modules for all possible kernel 
distributions/versions. At this moment only the companies controlling 
the Linux distributions can sell binary drivers.

Developers contributing their software to Linux kernel have full right 
to decide if other kernel code using their work is derived or not. 
However is it not fair that developers of some key subsystem like USB 
use this right? There is no alternative USB subsystem that the others 
could use. Of course we could take the earlier USB subsystem before the 
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL change and ship it together with our software. However 
is this going to work or is it benefit of anybody? No.

Using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is fair to protect code such as checksum or 
encryption/decryption algorithms is fair. Developers of independent 
kernel modules can use their own code. But the USB subsystem is 
different case because there is no alternative.

Isn't it somehow suspicious if this kind of decisions are made by 
employees of companies that develop a product which directly competes 
with ours. Maybe this is the way how the free Linux community works.

I would suggest the Linux kernel developer community should write down 
some rules the developers should agree _before_ they contribute anything 
to the kernel. It's not good to anybody that different developers can 
set different rules for the usage of their code. In particular it's not 
good that anybody can put additional restrictions to 
subsystems/interfaces that have been freely usable for years. The rest 
of the IT industry can then examine the rules and decide if there is any 
idea in investing on Linux based products.

Best regards,

Hannu

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Jesper Juhl]

On 18/12/06, Hannu Savolainen <hannu@opensound.com> wrote:
> Marek Wawrzyczny wrote:
> > Dear Linux Kernel ML,
> >
> > I am writing as a Linux-only user of over 2 years to express my concern with
> > the recent proposal to block out closed source modules from the kernel.
> >
> > While, I understand and share your sentiments over open source software and
> > drivers. I fear however, that trying to steamroll the industry into
> > developing open source drivers by banning closed source drivers is going to
> > have a completely different result. They will simply abandon Linux support
> > for some of their products altogether.
> >
> As a developer of some "closed source" drivers I can confirm that this
> is exactly the case. I would never consider open sourcing my work just
> because somebody is pointing pistol to my neck. I would leave the whole
> IT business and start doing something else rather than accept this kind
> of mafia-like negotiation methods.
>

Why is this dead horse still kicking?
Linus already spoke on this issue (
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/13/370 ,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/218 ) and Greg KH already withdrew his
patch ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/14/63 ), so could we please just
let this dead horse rest in peace?

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Giuseppe Bilotta]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:34:53 +0200, Hannu Savolainen wrote:

> For a professional developer of any software the decision of open 
> sourcing it is not easy. "Just for fun" developers have no problems 
> because they don't expect to be able to live on their work anyway. 
> However a professional developer can release software under GPL only if 
> it's considered invaluable or if there is some way to guarantee 
> sufficient income. Releasing something under GPL without a guaranteed 
> backup plan is like jumping from an airplane without parasuit.

Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies here, not
*software* companies. *Hardware* companies make money by selling
*hardware*, not the software that drives it: in fact, they always
distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers) for free (gratis).

So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers,
it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers
*hardware* companies distribute.

This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake
companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open
Graphics Card
http://wiki.duskglow.com/tiki-index.php?page=Open-Graphics
to succeed.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Hic manebimus optime

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Casey Schaufler]

--- Giuseppe Bilotta <bilotta78@hotpop.com> wrote:


> Except that we're talking about *hardware* companies
> here, not
> *software* companies. *Hardware* companies make
> money by selling
> *hardware*, not the software that drives it: in
> fact, they always
> distribute the 'software' they write (the drivers)
> for free (gratis).
> 
> So while what you say is perfectly sensible for
> *software* developers,
> it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed
> source drivers
> *hardware* companies distribute.

The argument that a hardware company usually
invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's
pitute about the software itself, they do care
about the information the software contains
about their hardware. The concern is that
publishing the software under any form of open
or free license would be seen as publishing
the details of the hardware, thus making any
claims that they attempted to protect thier
intellectual property void. They would sell
less hardware because they would have no legal
recourse against anyone who "stole" the secrets
to their hardware.

I make no claims to understanding the legal
basis for this position. I don't even know if
I think it makes sense. I have heard it often
enough to understand that many people believe
it though.


Casey Schaufler
casey@schaufler-ca.com

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 16:38 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote:
[...]
> The argument that a hardware company usually
> invokes is that, while they don't give a horse's
> pitute about the software itself, they do care
> about the information the software contains
> about their hardware. The concern is that
> publishing the software under any form of open
> or free license would be seen as publishing
> the details of the hardware, thus making any
> claims that they attempted to protect thier
> intellectual property void. They would sell
> less hardware because they would have no legal
> recourse against anyone who "stole" the secrets
> to their hardware.

The more realistic and more expensive threat is not the above (yes, one
can "copy" an already released product after reverse enginnering  and
also try to sell it but how long - in calendar time - does this take?
And during that time the original is sold all the time) but it is much
easier to detect (real or potential) patent violations and the fun
begins probably.
And ATM is is practically not possible to build anything remotely
"technical" without violating hundreds of patents somewhere (they may be
legal or "illegal" or trivial or software as such but if a patent is
granted it is there).

> I make no claims to understanding the legal
> basis for this position. I don't even know if
> I think it makes sense. I have heard it often
> enough to understand that many people believe
> it though.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1550 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:06:43 +0100, Giuseppe Bilotta said:

> So while what you say is perfectly sensible for *software* developers,
> it has absolutely nothing to do with the closed source drivers
> *hardware* companies distribute.

The problem is that the software drivers reveal an awful lot about the
innards of the hardware, which is something the hardware companies *do*
want to protect.

> This all being said, I think that the only thing that can shake
> companies such as nVidia and ATI is a project such as the Open
> Graphics Card

At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no
hard references for actual patent numbers).  And then they have the big
problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance,
or no?

If they produce a blazing-fast card and they manage to sell to 30% of the
Windows users, they've sold to about 27% of all computer users.  If they
skip the patent and produce a slower card to please the Linux users, even if
they sell to half the Linux users, that's only 5-6% of the market.

Which course of action is any CFO going to choose?

(And let's not underestimate the possibility that some yet-undisclosed
submarine patent will torpedo the Open Graphics Card if they unwittingly
re-invent something owned by a company that wants the card to fail....)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Erik Mouw]

On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
> originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no
> hard references for actual patent numbers).  And then they have the big
> problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance,
> or no?

Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention?


Erik

-- 
+-- Erik Mouw -- www.harddisk-recovery.com -- +31 70 370 12 90 --
| Lab address: Delftechpark 26, 2628 XH, Delft, The Netherlands

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --]

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:59:21 +0100, Erik Mouw said:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
> > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no
> > hard references for actual patent numbers).  And then they have the big
> > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance,
> > or no?
> 
> Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention?

(Argh - I was too busy coming down with the flu to carefully read what I
wrote, and as a result I was a tad less that totally specific and accurate.
Hopefully I get it closer to right this time. ;)

Patent licenses are also a good place to hang all sorts of side agreements on -
and I'm pretty sure that the *actual* intellectual property involved is a
witches' brew of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, all wrapped up with a
nice "thou shalt not disclose *any* of it" wrapper.

In any case, there isn't much that *any* company can do to open-source
something when they've got any sort of legally binding NDA attached to
3rd-party intellectual property.  At best, they can design an entirely
new product that totally avoids the IP in question - but as I noted last
time, the company *does* have to do a sanity check when 90% of the market
doesn't care in the slightest.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:59 +0100, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > they licensed from other companies (I believe some of the OpenGL stuff that
> > originated at SGI and got bought by Microsoft is involved, but I have no
> > hard references for actual patent numbers).  And then they have the big
> > problem - do they keep using the patent in order to boost performance,
> > or no?
> 
> Wasn't the whole idea about patents that you publish your invention?

Of course.
But it is much better for the patent-interested parties if it wouldn't
be necessary (and said parties are actually complaining about the "must
publish" thing).
And the times are long gone when a patent was actually "publishing".
They use since ages there own secret language so
- the patent system as such doen not enforce "publisching" (except you
  are one of speakers of "patent quak").
- that even the most trivial idea looks like it is very complicated.
- that even an already implemented idean looks like it is very new.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Trent Waddington]

> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 01:16:15PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > > At least nVidia *does* actually Get It, they just don't have a choice in
> > > implementing it, because all their current hardware includes patents that
> > > they licensed from other companies

What makes you think they "get it"?

In a recent interview
(http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/bsdtalk054-interview-with-andy-ritger.html)
the nvidia developer had this to say:

"Quite honestly we have a lot of ip sorrounding both our hardware and
our software. And so the driver we provide is binary only, ya know, to
protect that intellectual property. You know, I guess, on a software
side, so much of what we do, err, of the code that comprises that
drivers is common and leveraged across all the operating systems and I
think that is a big benefit. You know we are able to accomplish a lot
with a fairly small, err, unix specific engineering team because we're
able to leverage so much common code. Ya know, that really is a big
win for us and our users, and so, ya know, we provide a binary only
driver to protect that ip. Umm, that said, we do try to, ya know,
provide source for, err, ya know, for things when it makes sense and
its possible to do so. I guess for our various unix graphics drivers,
the interface between *cough* excuse me, the core of the binary, err
the core of the kernel module is operating system neutral .. is
shipped binary only but anything that, ya know, interacts directly
with, with unix kernel, be it linux or freebsd or whatever, we provide
the source code to that interface layer. Similarly, err, I guess, up
in user space, umm, you know, we were talking either about, umm, the
nvida X extension and our control panel nvidia-settings. The source
code for that is provided as GPL. We provide a command line tool
nvidia-xconfig for manipulating your xconfiguration files. We provide
that as GPL. So we do try to provide source code to those sorts of
utilities and things like that when it makes sense. Umm, but the core
of our driver, we only provide as binary."

Yeah, really sounds like he "gets it".

Why don't you release source?  To protect the intellectual property.
Well, duh!  That's why everyone holds back source.  So allow me to
translate..

Why don't you release source?  Because we don't believe in freedom, we
don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it.

That wasn't some marketting stooge they were interviewing either, it
was two of the guys who work on the unix porting team for the nvidia
drivers.

They don't get it.

Trent

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Alan]

> Why don't you release source?  To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh!  That's why everyone holds back source.  So allow me to
> translate..

That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on
with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents
on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone
else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where
software patents are generally not valid.

The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything
that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or
licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be
worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares.

Alan

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 945 bytes --]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said:

> That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried
> about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on
> with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would
> work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents
> on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone
> else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where
> software patents are generally not valid.
> 
> The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything
> that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or
> licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be
> worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares.

Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the
drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1113 bytes --]

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> Why don't you release source?  To protect the intellectual property.
> Well, duh!  That's why everyone holds back source.  So allow me to
> translate..
> 
> Why don't you release source?  Because we don't believe in freedom, we
> don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it.

There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code
without getting sued...

The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size.  Now, even
totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those
vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or
"obviousness" grounds.

So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP
issues?

Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*.
I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy
a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Weinehall]

On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:04:49PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:03:27 +1000, Trent Waddington said:
> > Why don't you release source?  To protect the intellectual property.
> > Well, duh!  That's why everyone holds back source.  So allow me to
> > translate..
> > 
> > Why don't you release source?  Because we don't believe in freedom, we
> > don't "get it" and we don't want you to have it.
> 
> There's believing in freedom, and there's wanting to be able to ship code
> without getting sued...
> 
> The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size.  Now, even
> totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
> that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
> code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those
> vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or
> "obviousness" grounds.

You know, not releasing source code doesn't  make "IP" violations
magically disappear, so if anything you should be more suspicious about
closed source drivers infringing others patents than anything.

> So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP
> issues?

If you have to worry about "IP", you're screwed no matter if you release
source or not.  The only problem is that it might be trickier for the
other party to prove.  The only case where a closed source driver makes
some kind of sense from an "IP" point of view is when you're trying to
protect your own code (or code you have licensed).

> Remember - somebody *can* "get it" but be unable to actually *deploy*.
> I *get* the whole global warming thing - but I'm not in a position to buy
> a hybrid car unless somebody else kicks in US$15K or $20K or so.

Well, you can always make a contribution by using public transportation
or switching to low energy light bulbs.  Every little thing counts =)


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Trent Waddington]

On 1/2/07, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> The binary blob in question is several megabytes in size.  Now, even
> totally *ignoring* who knowingly licensed/stole/whatever IP from who,
> that *still* leaves the problem of trying to write several megabytes of
> code that doesn't infringe on anybody's IP - particularly some of those
> vague submarine patents that should have been killed on "prior art" or
> "obviousness" grounds.
>
> So tell me - how *do* you release that much code without worrying about IP
> issues?

I'm going to try really hard to ignore how flammable your response
is.. I guess I deserve it.

I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
hacker lore in recent years.  It's caused by how little we know about
software patents.  The myth is that if you release source code which
violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release
binaries that violate someone's patent.  This is clearly, obviously,
false.  If you're practising the invention without a license in your
source code then you're practising the invention without a license in
binaries compiled from that source code.  Period.

Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason:
it's not their culture.  They don't see the need.  They don't see the
benefit.

Trent

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:30 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
[...]
> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
> hacker lore in recent years.  It's caused by how little we know about
> software patents.  The myth is that if you release source code which
> violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release
> binaries that violate someone's patent.  This is clearly, obviously,
> false.  If you're practising the invention without a license in your
> source code then you're practising the invention without a license in
> binaries compiled from that source code.  Period.

While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to
a so-called "agreement" on the costs.

> Nvidia are not releasing source code to their drivers for one reason:
> it's not their culture.  They don't see the need.  They don't see the
> benefit.

Which also may well be true.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Trent Waddington]

On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote:
> While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
> practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
> have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
> of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to
> a so-called "agreement" on the costs.

On 1/2/07, Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught.
> Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by
> people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in
> search of offenders.

The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
graphics hardware.

Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a
patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a
disassembler jockey.

So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether
you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries.
 It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a
patent lawsuit.

Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable
reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that
the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they
don't see the benefit?   If that's the case, what benefit can we offer
them?

Trent

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 21:26 +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> On 1/2/07, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote:
> > While this is true (at last in theory), there is one difference in
> > practice: It is *much* easier to prove a/the patent violation if you
> > have (original?) source code than to reverse engineer the assembler dump
> > of the compiled code and prove the patent violation far enough to get to
> > a so-called "agreement" on the costs.
> 
> On 1/2/07, Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught.
> > Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by
> > people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in
> > search of offenders.
> 
> The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
> sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
> graphics hardware.
>
> Regardless, in the *millions* of dollars that it costs to prosecute a
> patent violation case I think they can find a few grand to throw at a
> disassembler jockey.

Most of the cases (more or less "almost all" AFAIK) are handled/closed
without really going to court (since it is cheaper for all - especially
if the alleged patent violator is substantially smaller than the patent
holder and will not survive the law suit. See it as "protection money").
So there are no real statistics available on this issue.
I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to
list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will
get a price for it and no guarantees of success).
Thus the patent holder takes the whole risk that I don't find anything
useful (independent of the presence of a patent violation or my
inability to find/identify it).
And you need people wo are literate in "patent quak" and the technical
side so it will IMHP not work if you get someone not very expensive[0].

> So I'll take back what I said.. it does make some difference whether
> you release patent violating source code or patent violating binaries.
>  It makes about a 1% difference to the overall cost of prosecuting a
> patent lawsuit.

Given the above, the difference (measured in money/effort/....) is in
IMHO much larger than 1%.

> Now if you are done speculating why nvidia might have a reasonable
> reason for not releasing source code, can we just take it as read that
> the most likely reason is that they simply don't want to because they
> don't see the benefit?   If that's the case, what benefit can we offer
> them?

I don't know.
For network cards it helped to recommend hardware with open drivers. In
the graphic card department this didn't worked up to now.

	Bernd

[0]: That doesn't imply that hiring someone expensive guarantees
success.
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Horst H. von Brand]

Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote:

[...]

> I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to
> list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will
> get a price for it and no guarantees of success).

And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having
legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 16:23 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@firmix.at> wrote:
> [...]
> > I don't know about others but I wouldn't write an offer with a fixed
> > price for "look into assembler dumps, reverse engineer it and find an
> > infringement on a list of given patents" so the patent holder has to
> > list the patents and the amount of my time to invest (and then he will
> > get a price for it and no guarantees of success).
> 
> And them you'd have to testify (as an expert witness, AFAIU). Having

Probably if
-) I actually found something and
-) the patent holder also believes in it (and he will - IMHO very
probably - 
     pay another expert to verify the findings) and
-) the patent holder actually persues the infringements and
-) the law suit goes that far and.

> legally demostrable expertise in the area isn't easy, I suppose.

At least in .at you need some kind of "official approval" to become an
"expert in court" (in German: "Gutachter" - Is "assessor" the correct
translation? http://dict.leo.org/ lists 9 different words).
Actually this is a somewhat different job ....

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:26:14PM +1000, Trent Waddington wrote:
> The list of features which the driver supports is going to be
> sufficient evidence for 99% of patents that relate to computer
> graphics hardware.

Nope, not necessarily.  Recall that Patent Office has issued a patent
on the concept of using "XOR" in graphics operations (for dealing with
a cursor that's moving around).  There are plenty of patents involving
optimizations that can't be proven unless you have access to the
low-level source code or are willing to spend a huge amount of money
disassembling megabytes of binaries.  In fact, there are rumors
floating around that pthe reason why no one is willing to release
source code is that both sides are almost certainly violating each
other's trivial patents, and defending against a patent lawsuit can
take years, millions of dollars, and even if the patent is completely
and totally bogus, can put a company out of business.  Witness what
happened with Research in Motion and the patents allegedly covering
the Blackberry.  Even though the USPTO had already provisionally ruled
that there was prior art (the patent troll still had appeals to file),
the judge wasn't willing to wait for the USPTO process to finish, and
was prepared to issue a ruling that would put a 23 BILLION dollar
company out of business.  So RIMM ended up paying over half a billion
dollars of blackmail money to settle a patent lawsuit where the
patents may end up getting ruled completely bogus a year or two from
now anyway.

In any case, the rumor that was going around was that the reasn why
neither side is willing to release sources is because whoever did
would be committing potential corporate suicide first....

I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies often
feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the country that
has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who spill hot coffee
in their lap and my favorite, to an idiot who lifted up a lawnmover to
trim their hedges, dropped the lawnmover on his foot and lost his foot
as a result.  The lawn mover company had to pay $$$ because they
hadn't thought to put in a idiot switch to stop the lawnmower blade
from spinning when it was lifted off the ground....

						- Ted

P.S.  The opinions expressed in this e-mail are completely my own; I'm
not important enough to decide the corporate position of my employer.  :-)

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:

> I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
> system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> often feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the
> country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> spill hot coffee in their lap ...

MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC:  can we please stop using this "hot coffee in
lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system?  i'm
guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and
you're welcome to read the details here:

  http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

as you can see, there are two salient points that change the
complexion of this story thoroughly:

1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
*scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and

2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.

  yes, the american system of justice is brain-damaged.  but it's time
to find another example to use as the evidence, ok?

rday

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 
> > I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
> > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > often feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the
> > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > spill hot coffee in their lap ...
> 
> MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC:  can we please stop using this "hot coffee in
> lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system?  i'm
> guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and
> you're welcome to read the details here:
> 
>   http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> 
> as you can see, there are two salient points that change the
> complexion of this story thoroughly:
> 
> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and

That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.

No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total
ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh.  If they
cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a refill
of their cola.

[snip]


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Jens Axboe]

On Tue, Jan 02 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > 
> > > I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > > often feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the
> > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > > spill hot coffee in their lap ...
> > 
> > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC:  can we please stop using this "hot coffee in
> > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system?  i'm
> > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and
> > you're welcome to read the details here:
> > 
> >   http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> > 
> > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the
> > complexion of this story thoroughly:
> > 
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> 
> That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to
happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those
things!  Talk about corporate irresponsibility.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[James Simmons]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1378 bytes --]


> > > > I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
> > > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > > > often feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the
> > > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > > > spill hot coffee in their lap ...
> > > 
> > > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC:  can we please stop using this "hot coffee in
> > > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system?  i'm
> > > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and
> > > you're welcome to read the details here:
> > > 
> > >   http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> > > 
> > > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the
> > > complexion of this story thoroughly:
> > > 
> > > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> > 
> > That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
> > people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?
> 
> I guess selling sharp kitchen knifes in the US is a law suit waiting to
> happen as well then, people could seriously hurt themselves with those
> things!  Talk about corporate irresponsibility.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Jan Engelhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1341 bytes --]


On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>> 
>> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
>> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
>> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
>
>That's less than 90°C.
[1]

>Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
>people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend
arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an
experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40
deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water
already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a
while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable.

>> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
>> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
>> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
>
>No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total
>ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh.  If they
>cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a
>refill of their cola.

Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753


	-`J'
-- 

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 06:13:46PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> 
> On Jan 2 2007 16:15, David Weinehall wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> >> 
> >> 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> >> *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> >> will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> >
> >That's less than 90°C.
> [1]
> 
> >Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
> >people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?
> 
> Boil or not - I've done a test some years ago with some friend
> arguing about what the best temperature for tea is. Result of an
> experiment involving actual temperature sensors: my default tea is 40
> deg celsius. Theirs was about 60. And to note, drinking 60 deg water
> already starts to scald my tongue slightly so that it 'itches' for a
> while. So nothing[1] is unreasonable.

For tea, you're not supposed to boil the water, only let it seethe, as
far as I know.  But yes, drinking scalding hot beverages is quite
stupid.  I'm not arguing against that.  But not realising that something
you need to at the very least seethe to prepare might be hot when served
is showing total ignorance.

> >> 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> >> had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> >> mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.
> >
> >No, the customers continued to prove to be total morons by total
> >ignorance of the fact that coffee *is* hot when fresh.  If they
> >cannot handle hot coffee, they can order ice coffee or ask for a
> >refill of their cola.
> 
> Reminds me of http://qdb.us/4753

Sounds quite reasonable.  Things have gone too far when there are
warnings about even the most obvious things.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8, Size: 1105 bytes --]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> 
> That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

Ah, many thanks for converting from Fahrenheit to Celsius!

> > 2) there had, for a decade prior, been some *700* cases where people
> > had burned themselves with mcdonald's coffee, so it's not as if
> > mcdonald's was unaware of the danger, yet continued to ignore it.

Given the population size of Fahrenheit-country, 700 burns must be an
understatement...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Neil Brown]

On Tuesday January 2, tao@acc.umu.se wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 08:22:21AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > 
> > > I can very easily believe it.  The US patent system and "justice"
> > > system in the US is completely and totally insane, and companies
> > > often feel they have to act accordingly.  Remember this is the
> > > country that has issued multi-million dollar awards to people who
> > > spill hot coffee in their lap ...
> > 
> > MASSIVELY OFF TOPIC:  can we please stop using this "hot coffee in
> > lap" story as an example of the idiocy of the justice system?  i'm
> > guessing there's more to this story than most folks are aware of, and
> > you're welcome to read the details here:
> > 
> >   http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
> > 
> > as you can see, there are two salient points that change the
> > complexion of this story thoroughly:
> > 
> > 1) mcdonald's was not merely serving their coffee "hot," but
> > *scalding* hot (180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit), a temperature that
> > will produce third-degree burns almost immediately, and
> 
> That's less than 90°C.  Water boils at 100°C.  How the hell do 
> people expect coffee to be made without boiling water?  Magic?

We have a coffee chain down here (.au) called "92degrees".  They claim this
is the optimal temperature for pumping the water through the ground
coffee beans to get ideal coffee.  So it doesn't need to be boiling.

Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have
this problem :-)

[We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption
and flame wars].

NeilBrown

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Randy Dunlap]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:11:21 +1100 Neil Brown wrote:

> Of course if people would just put milk in their coffee, we would have
> this problem :-)
> 
> [We now return you to our regular program of filesystem corruption
> and flame wars].

Yes, PLEEZE!

---
~Randy

Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)

[Alan]

> I think you're repeating a myth that has become a common part of
> hacker lore in recent years.  It's caused by how little we know about
> software patents.  The myth is that if you release source code which
> violates someone's patent that is somehow worse than if you release
> binaries that violate someone's patent.  This is clearly, obviously,
> false.  If you're practising the invention without a license in your
> source code then you're practising the invention without a license in
> binaries compiled from that source code.  Period.

You are forgetting the 11th commandment - thou shalt not get caught.
Most software patents (actually quite probably most patents) are held by
people who don't have the skills to go disassembling megabytes of code in
search of offenders.

Alan