* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-01 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Constantine A. Murenin
Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev, Jiri Slaby,
Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <f34ca13c0709011427u7a9cc97bp75c035afed3e5a63@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> > > >
> > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > >
> > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > to the original dispute.
> >
> > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
> > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
>
> FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on.
>
> FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam.
>
> > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
> > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
>
> How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are
> no possible licensing accusations and violations.
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
to make GPL-only
3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a
copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK...
> > > That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
> >
> > Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> > "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> > two choices alternatively offered.
> >
> > According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
> FreeBSD's ath(4) code, both the driver and the HAL, is entirely
> written by Sam Leffler, who can licence it in whichever way he seems
> reasonable. The driver part of Sam's code is also present in OpenBSD,
> but the HALs in OpenBSD and FreeBSD are entirely different.
Sam also changed the licence of a file additionally containing an
Copyright (c) 2004 Video54 Technologies, Inc.
> C.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 "no CRC" MODPOST warnings
From: Satyam Sharma @ 2007-09-01 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, netdev, Sam Ravnborg
In-Reply-To: <20070831215822.26e1432b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc4/2.6.23-rc4-mm1/
Got these on an i386 build with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y ...
WARNING: "div64_64" [net/netfilter/xt_connbytes.ko] has no CRC!
WARNING: "div64_64" [net/ipv4/tcp_cubic.ko] has no CRC!
Full .config at: http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/ssatyam/config-mm
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2]: [NET_SCHED]: Making rate table lookups more flexible.
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer @ 2007-09-01 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: jdb, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David S. Miller
In-Reply-To: <46D91082.7050609@trash.net>
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>
>> [NET_SCHED]: Making rate table lookups more flexible. Extend the
>> tc_ratespec struct, with two parameters: 1) "cell_align" that allow
>> adjusting the alignment of the rate table. 2) "overhead" that allow
>> adding a packet overhead before the lookup.
>
>
> Am I guessing right that the intention is to resurrect the ATM patch?
Yes, you are right.
Remember, Jamal ACKed the patch, and you redrew your NAK.
This is not a ATM/ADSL only patch. This patch simply adds more
flexibility to the rate tables. Afterwards we can start the discussion
about how to use this new flexibility in tc/iproute2.
BTW. The reason you could not measure any improvements on your SHDSL line
is that it uses HDLC and not ATM as data link layer.
See your,
Jesper Brouer
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSc. Master of Computer Science
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
Author of http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Sam Leffler @ 2007-09-01 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
In-Reply-To: <20070901205457.GK9260-HeJ8Db2Gnd6zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>>
>>>> This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
>>>>
>>> What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
>>>
>> Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
>> to the original dispute.
>>
>
> It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
> people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
>
> So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
> dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
>
Sigh, why actually check the facts when you can make them up. The code
in question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with
onoe-san who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only
in freebsd). Of course what was amusing was how after I changed the
license on the current code in freebsd certain folks retroactively
applied the license changes to code that was 3 years old.
But is there a point to all this nonsense? I dual-licensed the code so
folks could adopt and use it however they saw fit. As I've said before
I don't care what people do with the work I give away so long as they
don't claim it's their own.
>
>> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>>
>
> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> two choices alternatively offered.
>
> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
>
I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting
jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual
license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of
my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sam
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/2]: [NET_SCHED]: Make all rate based scheduler work with TSO.
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer @ 2007-09-01 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: jdb, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David S. Miller
In-Reply-To: <46D9103B.7090905@trash.net>
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> commit 6fdc0f061be94f5e297650961360fb7a9d1cc85d
>> Author: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@comx.dk>
>> Date: Thu Aug 30 17:53:42 2007 +0200
>>
>> [NET_SCHED]: Make all rate based scheduler work with TSO.
>>
>> Change L2T (length to time) macros, in all rate based schedulers, to
>> call a common function qdisc_l2t() that does the rate table lookup.
>> This function handles if the packet size lookup is larger than the
>> rate table, which often occurs with TSO enabled.
>
>
> It still won't work properly with TSO (TBF for example already drops
> oversized packets during ->enqueue), but its a good cleanup anyway.
Then lets call it a cleanup of the L2T macros. In the next step we will
fix the different schedulers, to use the ability to lookup larger sized
packets. (I did notice the TBF scheduler would drop oversized packets).
>> +#define L2T(p,L) ((p)->tcfp_R_tab, L)
>> +#define L2T_P(p,L) ((p)->tcfp_P_tab, L)
>
>
> I'd prefer to get rid of these L2T macros completely.
Lets take it one step at a time, but I agree.
Will you ack the patch as a cleanup?
Hilsen
Jesper Brouer
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSc. Master of Computer Science
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
Author of http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-01 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Constantine A. Murenin; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev
In-Reply-To: <f34ca13c0709011451p67ca96f8o184c0b32efa6b55b@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:51:49PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> > > > >
> > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > > >
> > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > > to the original dispute.
> >
> > Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
> > with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
> >
> > /* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
> > /* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */
> >
> > /*-
> > * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> > * All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> > * without modification.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> > * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> > * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> > * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> > * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> > * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> > * from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > *
> > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> > * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> > * Software Foundation.
> > *
> > * NO WARRANTY
> > * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> > * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> > * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
> > * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> > * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
> > * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> > * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
> > * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
> > * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
> > * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
> > * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
> > */
>
> Where exactly do you see Reyk's copyright in the above quote?
>...
He has automatically a copyright on his contributions if they are
non-trivial.
> C.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-01 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sam Leffler
Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
In-Reply-To: <46D9E1B8.2060300-zZXckVAlHaQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:03:36PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
>>>>> licensing.
>>>>>
>>>> What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
>>>>
>>> Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
>>> to the original dispute.
>>>
>>
>> It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
>> people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
>>
>> So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
>> dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
>>
>
> Sigh, why actually check the facts when you can make them up. The code in
> question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with onoe-san
> who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only in freebsd).
The latter is the code by Video54 Technologies?
> Of course what was amusing was how after I changed the license on the
> current code in freebsd certain folks retroactively applied the license
> changes to code that was 3 years old.
>
> But is there a point to all this nonsense? I dual-licensed the code so
> folks could adopt and use it however they saw fit. As I've said before I
> don't care what people do with the work I give away so long as they don't
> claim it's their own.
Fully agreed. :-)
>>> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>>>
>>
>> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
>> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the two
>> choices alternatively offered.
>>
>> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
> I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting
> jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual
> license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my
> code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sorry, this has been a thinko on my side:
If noone except you and onoe-san made any contributions to this code
that were non-trivial enough for automatically giving its author a
copyright on his contributions (whatever this means in various
jurisdictions...) it was indeed an author-only change.
> Sam
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 "no CRC" MODPOST warnings
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-01 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Satyam Sharma
Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, netdev, Sam Ravnborg
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709020327260.20781@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:36:08AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc4/2.6.23-rc4-mm1/
>
> Got these on an i386 build with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y ...
>
> WARNING: "div64_64" [net/netfilter/xt_connbytes.ko] has no CRC!
> WARNING: "div64_64" [net/ipv4/tcp_cubic.ko] has no CRC!
>...
That's expected since the fix is in git-kbuild.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* [beck-B8nDeHyzpwgue2609Ts4vbeKQFjJmrJW@public.gmane.org: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.]
From: Bob Beck @ 2007-09-01 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
----- Forwarded message from Bob Beck <beck-B8nDeHyzpwgue2609Ts4vbeKQFjJmrJW@public.gmane.org> -----
From: Bob Beck <beck-B8nDeHyzpwgue2609Ts4vbeKQFjJmrJW@public.gmane.org>
To: misc-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on bofh.cns.ualberta.ca
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:22:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
[ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
recent license modifications to reyk's files]
>Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
>with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
>
>/* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
>/* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */
>/*-
> * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> * All rights reserved.
Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's
work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
*removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not
*changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the
first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to
make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors
of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright
statement (on reyk's code) without his permission.
I have always immensely respected the GPL - it has very noble
goals, they are very appropriate in some cases, they don't happen to
be mine, but that's fine, I don't release my code under it - but
that's fine, it's my choice. Just like many smart people who I know
and respect do their work in GPL land, and this is great too. However,
when it comes time to be looking at someone else's work above all we
have to respect the various authors choice of how they want their hard
work shared with the community.
To me, this seems like a portion of the Linux community seems to be
wanting to make their own rules, chosing to rewrite a license at any
time they choose without the original author's agreement. This appalls
and scares me. Why? not only does it show a huge lack of respect for
someone who has worked very hard to produce something the whole
community can use, but seriously undermines software freedom as a
whole. This is a slippery slope. If one community starts modifying the
others licenses for no purpose other than zealotry, I see only two
consequences:
1) a hugh rift of mistrust between the developers of both camps,
meaning no cooperating to make the world a better place.
2) A weakening of the respect for licensing on all sides of the
community, which weakens the credibility of both BSD *AND* the GPL
license when tested from the outside. Frankly, this scares the hell
out of me and dismays me.
I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what
you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the
verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the
ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our
rights as code authors in the future.
-Bob
----- End forwarded message -----
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8961] New: BUG triggered by oidentd in netlink code
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2007-09-01 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Athanasius, Patrick McHardy, linux-kernel, Andrew Morton, netdev,
bugme-d
In-Reply-To: <20070901173944.GB3693@miggy.org>
Athanasius wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:38:23PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>> You might be able to trigger it without this patch by running
>> "while true; do ss -tn; done" while doing ident queries, but
>> just running the while loop a couple of times in parallel
>> doesn't seem to trigger it here.
>
> I went for setting up a dummy listener in inetd, using tcpd, and
> setting hosts.allow to specify myuser@ip. Then a few while loops
> spamming it with connections using nc.
>
> Anyway, on the old kernel that managed to trigger the BUG twice in
> about 30 minutes. I'm now on 2.6.22.6 plus your patch and coming up on
> an hour (55+ mins) of the same and no sign of the BUG.
>
> So that looks like fixed to me. I'll weigh in again if the daily
> logcheck throws up another.
Thanks a lot for testing, I'll send a version for current -rc
upstream tommorrow.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 "no CRC" MODPOST warnings
From: Sam Ravnborg @ 2007-09-01 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Satyam Sharma; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, netdev
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0709020327260.20781@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:36:08AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc4/2.6.23-rc4-mm1/
>
> Got these on an i386 build with CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y ...
>
> WARNING: "div64_64" [net/netfilter/xt_connbytes.ko] has no CRC!
> WARNING: "div64_64" [net/ipv4/tcp_cubic.ko] has no CRC!
As Adrian already commented it is fixed in kbuild.git.
It happes bacause genksyms did not know __extension__ and error recovery
in the parser were bad. I only managed to add support for __extension__ but
the error receovery are not fixed :-(
kbuild.git is not part of this -mm due to me fucking up the above fix.
That is corrected now so it will be in next -mm.
Sam
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Constantine A. Murenin @ 2007-09-01 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev, Jiri Slaby,
Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <20070901215225.GM9260@stusta.de>
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> > > > >
> > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > > >
> > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > > to the original dispute.
> > >
> > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
> > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
> >
> > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on.
> >
> > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam.
> >
> > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
> > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
> >
> > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are
> > no possible licensing accusations and violations.
>
> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
> to make GPL-only
> 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>
> For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
> without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
>
> So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
> to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
> with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
>
> It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a
> copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK...
I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts --
there were many messages posted to misc@openbsd.org mailing list and
to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as
all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam.
After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the
problem started being an ethical one.
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at
OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence,
but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of
OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.)
You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem,
as in the message below.
C.
On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
( from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/178 )
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Luis R. Rodriguez @ 2007-09-01 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Constantine A. Murenin
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby, Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <f34ca13c0709011629g1f16508cic7c31c3d20a57dae-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [beck@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.]
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-01 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Beck; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev
In-Reply-To: <20070901224112.GC24887@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:41:12PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Bob Beck <beck@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca> -----
>
> From: Bob Beck <beck@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca>
> To: misc@openbsd.org
> Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on bofh.cns.ualberta.ca
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
> DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.8
> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:22:43 -0600
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14
>
> [ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
> recent license modifications to reyk's files]
>
> >Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
> >with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
> >
> >/* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
> >/* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */
> >/*-
> > * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> > * All rights reserved.
>
> Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's
> work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
> to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
> *removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
> That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not
> *changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the
> first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to
> make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors
> of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright
> statement (on reyk's code) without his permission.
>...
You miss the whole point of dual licencing:
Sam has stated in the licence that the code can be distributed under the
terms of the BSD licence, or alternatively it can be distributed under
the terms of the GPLv2.
Noone removed Sam's licence.
Sam has offered a choice, and if you choose one of the two offered
licences when distributing his code that complies with what he stated
in his copyright notice.
IANAL, but if reyk contributed to dual licenced code keeping the file
dual licenced it's hard to argue that he did not make the changes he
made available dual licenced.
> I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
> inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
> the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
> Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what
> you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the
> verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the
> ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our
> rights as code authors in the future.
The funny thing is that it seems Jiri's patch contained copyright
violations - and the parts of his patch Theo attacks are the parts
that are OK...
> -Bob
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Bob Beck @ 2007-09-02 0:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, misc-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w
>As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
>the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
>reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
>it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
>to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at
>OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence,
>but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of
>OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.)
>
>You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem,
>as in the message below.
>
>C.
>
>
>>On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
>> >
>> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>>
>> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
>> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
>> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and
expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at
least private industry does not come to the table with "hey, let's
cooperate" - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly.
However, when a linux developer comes to us and say "hey lets cooperate"
usually there is a thought of "this is a kindred spirit who understands
what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back". My concern
is that this situation will change if this is not rectified.
I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on
morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with
less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while
corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up
front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of
cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back.
-Bob
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-02 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Constantine A. Murenin
Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby, Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <f34ca13c0709011629g1f16508cic7c31c3d20a57dae-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > > > >
> > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > > > to the original dispute.
> > > >
> > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
> > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam.
> > >
> > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
> > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
> > >
> > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are
> > > no possible licensing accusations and violations.
> >
> > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
> > of files changed by Jiri's patch:
> > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
> > to make GPL-only
> > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> >
> > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
> > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
> >
> > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
> > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
> > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
> >
> > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a
> > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK...
>
> I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts --
> there were many messages posted to misc-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org mailing list and
> to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as
> all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam.
>...
Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email
you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux
developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using
dual licenced code.
> After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the
> problem started being an ethical one.
>
> As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
> the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
> reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
> it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
> to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at
> OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence,
> but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of
> OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.)
>
> You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem,
> as in the message below.
Is it a legal problem or is it "only" an ethical problem?
If choosing one licence when using dual licenced code is not a legal
problem then Theo repeatedly talking about it would "break the law" in
the email you forwarded was very unethical and the worst he could do
for his cause.
> C.
>...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply
* Oops in 2.6.23-rc5
From: Christian Kujau @ 2007-09-01 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: netdev
Hi,
today I switched from 2.6.22.3 to 2.6.23-rc5 (skipped quite a few -rc
versions due to lack of time), and the box keeps panicking under certain
circumstances. I suspected disk related problems, because: when the box
is up, I usually resume ~10 bittorrent files. When doing this, each
file (~200MB...1GB) is checked and disk activity is pretty high (20MB/s
or so), and after 1 minute of doing so the box panicks. Every time.
However, I could not reproduce it while generating disk-io with say tar
or rsync to the same fs. It always panicked when the torrent client(s)
start up. As the box would not log anything via remote-syslog before
halting, I connected a vga display. As I don't have a digital camera, I
tried to write down some stuff: http://ww.nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.23-rc5/
(I'll try to write down the full oops to this place, or what was still
visible from it, because the first few(?) lines where lost, display
scrollback was not working, only sysrq was).
The backtrace mentions do_page_fault, error_code, tcp_rtt_estimator,
tcp_ack_saw_timestamp, tcp_ack, tcp_rcv_established, tcp_v4_do_rcv,
tcp_v4_rcv, ip_local_delimiter, netif_receive_skb, process_backlog,
net_rcv_activate, __do_softirq, do_softirq - in that order. As said, the
correct addresses will be put on above's url (Q: do I really need *all*
the numbers? Or just a few?). These snippets made me suspect network
related issues, because: aside from disk-io, the bittorrent clients will
establish quite a few (~50 in total) connections to all the peers.
The box is a amd-k7, 2 NICs (forcedeth, 3c59x), 2 GB RAM, ACPI
disabled, gcc-4.1
Thanks for looking into this,
Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #335:
the AA battery in the wallclock sends magnetic interference
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Constantine A. Murenin @ 2007-09-02 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis R. Rodriguez
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby, Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <43e72e890709011648k5caffb7fn1051e1f5d5f27c9b-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
> Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
> attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
> done privately.
Err...
I don't understand why you need a lawyer to interpret this document:
/* $OpenBSD: ar5210.c,v 1.39 2007/04/10 17:47:55 miod Exp $ */
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
If you want to add more code to it, and your contribution is
significant, simply add you name next to Reyk's. Where's the problem?
I don't know how licensing could be any simpler than this. Please,
notice, that there are no additional documents (other than the
copyright law) to read here -- _this is the complete licence_! (And
you have to read the copyright law even if you use the GNU GPL.)
C.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Jason Dixon @ 2007-09-02 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bunk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A
Cc: mureninc-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w, jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, jirislaby-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w,
alan-qBU/x9rampVanCEyBjwyrvXRex20P6io
In-Reply-To: <20070901215225.GM9260-HeJ8Db2Gnd6zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used
> planned
> to make GPL-only
> 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>
> For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
> without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code
> unter 3.
>
> So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
> to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
> with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
The BSD license plainly states:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used
BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so
difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb?
As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm
appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to
cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder.
You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of
non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can. As bad as
Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox,
one of the so-called defenders of free software.
Shame on you all.
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 OOPS in forcedeth?
From: Satyam Sharma @ 2007-09-02 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: thunder7, Andrew Morton, Linux Kernel Mailing List, netdev
In-Reply-To: <46D9B7EF.2050109@garzik.org>
Hi Jurriaan,
> thunder7@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> > Date: Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 09:58:22PM -0700
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23-rc4/2.6.23-rc4-mm1/
> > >
> > On this machine (Athlon 64 X2 4600, 4 GiB memory, lots of disks),
> > 2.6.23-rc1-mm2 runs fine. 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 reproducably dies within seconds of
> > starting
> > a rsync session on another PC against this machine.
> >
> > NULL pointer dereference
> > code: nv_napi_poll+0x108
> > trace: net_rx_action+0xab
> > __do_softirq+0x74
> > call_softirq+0x1c
> > do_softirq+0x3d
> > irq_exit+0x85
> > do_IRQ+0x85
> > ret_from_intr+0x0
The dmesg you posted below doesn't cover the messages from this oops
itself. As you mentioned you can reproduce this oops easily, please do so,
and post the *full* oops log (if it doesn't get logged to disk, you can
try taking digicam photo, or write down *all* the messages and post here).
I built an x86_64 kernel as per your .config, but don't see any memory
dereference at nv_napi_poll+0x108 -- could be toolchain differences.
Else, can you run:
$ gdb ./vmlinux
and then:
(gdb) l *nv_napi_poll+0x108
and send us the output?
Satyam
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Theo de Raadt @ 2007-09-02 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Beck; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev
In-Reply-To: <20070902000226.GE24887@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca>
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,
and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Constantine A. Murenin @ 2007-09-02 0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev, Jiri Slaby,
Alan Cox
In-Reply-To: <20070902000913.GB16016@stusta.de>
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > > > > to the original dispute.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
> > > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
> > > >
> > > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on.
> > > >
> > > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam.
> > > >
> > > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
> > > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
> > > >
> > > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are
> > > > no possible licensing accusations and violations.
> > >
> > > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
> > > of files changed by Jiri's patch:
> > > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> > > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
> > > to make GPL-only
> > > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> > >
> > > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
> > > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
> > >
> > > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
> > > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
> > > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
> > >
> > > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a
> > > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK...
> >
> > I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts --
> > there were many messages posted to misc@openbsd.org mailing list and
> > to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as
> > all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam.
> >...
>
> Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email
> you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux
> developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using
> dual licenced code.
For the sake of the discussion, at the time I forwarded the message,
the obvious licensing problems (e.g. the original infamous patch by
Jiri) were already addressed.
Personally, these problems were so obvious -- entirely changing the
licence under Reyk's Copyright notice -- that I didn't even take them
for real when they first came across.
BTW, I've now once again re-read the original message that I've
forwarded, and it does contain Theo's reiteration of his response that
the original re-licensing patch had clear violations. E.g. re-read
this part of his message:
- If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
Really.
> > After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the
> > problem started being an ethical one.
> >
> > As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
> > the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
> > reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
> > it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
> > to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at
> > OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence,
> > but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of
> > OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.)
> >
> > You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem,
> > as in the message below.
>
> Is it a legal problem or is it "only" an ethical problem?
I don't particularly like to repeat myself -- after the obvious
licensing issues were addressed, it has indeed become an ethical
problem: why do you think that you as the Linux community has to act
ruder to the *BSD community than the supposed corporations that we
always hear about in the BSD/GPL licensing arguments?
I really like the response that Bob Beck gave on this question:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/197
> If choosing one licence when using dual licenced code is not a legal
> problem then Theo repeatedly talking about it would "break the law" in
> the email you forwarded was very unethical and the worst he could do
> for his cause.
My understanding is that with dual-licensed code, you choose to comply
with all of the terms of either licence. However, you cannot simply
remove either of these licences from the code, unless you specifically
receive such right from the copyright holder (remember, with the
copyright law, unless the rights are specifically given, they are
retained). This is what Theo was trying to educate the community on. I
don't see anything unethical in explaining the legal issues.
Constantine.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 1/3] netlink: use the macro min(x,y) provided by <linux/kernel.h> instead
From: rae l @ 2007-09-02 0:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Newall; +Cc: David S. Miller, netdev, linux-kernel, cr_quan
In-Reply-To: <46DA07B8.4050204@davidnewall.com>
On 9/2/07, David Newall <david@davidnewall.com> wrote:
> Denis Cheng wrote
> > + order = get_bitmask_order(min(max, (unsigned long)UINT_MAX)) - 1;
> >
>
> Why doesn't this clash with the max define, also in linux/kernel.h?
They indeed don't clash,
the cpp included by gcc is intelligent enough, it know the
function-style definition of max in kernel.h, that's different from
the auto variable max here, so they don't clash with each other,
But I think the variable name "max" here is ambiguous, I changed it to
"limit", see my following patch [PATCH 2/3].
--
Denis Cheng
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: r.kernel.org
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-09-02 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Beck; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-wireless, netdev
In-Reply-To: <20070902001913.GF24887@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca>
Bob Beck wrote:
>
>> I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
>> Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
>> attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
>> done privately.
>>
>> Luis
>
> What? when we talk about the ethics of cooperating development
> and sharing code the response is "we have lawyers watching your backs"
> and "we know what we are doing and have a plan"
>
> What is this? a concerted attack by some organization on
> the BSD projects? Would that be the FSF? or freesoftware.org?
>
> What kind of crap is this? that Free Software developers can't
> respect each others project goals and work together, but instead should
> beware of organizations with hidden agendas to abscond with their work.
>
> What a crock. I urge any developers involved to decide if
> you really want to work in an environment of this sort of amoral baloney.
Your BSD software appears to have a bug in it. Your email's CC line was
truncated at "netdev@vge", with the rest spilling into your email's
subject line.
I'll wager this bug also triggered a buffer overflow on your side,
leading to an unwanted public spew of anti-Linux conspiracy theories.
But don't worry, we find them entertaining nonetheless.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply
* [PATCH -mm] net/sched/sch_cbq.c: Shut up uninitialized variable warning
From: Satyam Sharma @ 2007-09-02 1:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Patrick McHardy, David Miller, netdev
In-Reply-To: <20070831215822.26e1432b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
net/sched/sch_cbq.c: In function 'cbq_enqueue':
net/sched/sch_cbq.c:383: warning: 'ret' may be used uninitialized in this function
has been verified to be a bogus case. So let's shut it up.
Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <satyam@infradead.org>
---
net/sched/sch_cbq.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1/net/sched/sch_cbq.c~fix 2007-09-02 06:45:08.000000000 +0530
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1/net/sched/sch_cbq.c 2007-09-02 06:44:37.000000000 +0530
@@ -380,7 +380,7 @@ cbq_enqueue(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
{
struct cbq_sched_data *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
int len = skb->len;
- int ret;
+ int uninitialized_var(ret);
struct cbq_class *cl = cbq_classify(skb, sch, &ret);
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox