* potentially kernel panic on lib/rbtree.c
From: slavon @ 2007-09-02 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Sorry for prev. send =(
Hi all. Have some time panic from sch_htb.c
I see to gdb and see that panic at lib/rbtree.c:80
gparent == NULL
maybe add lines like this before IF
if (gparent == NULL){
WARN_ON(1);
// MAYBE need remove parrent that not have gparent at this place? But
i think that maybe its not have gparent becouse its lock? No so deep
look code.
continue;
}
Thanks
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
^ permalink raw reply
* potentially kernel panic on lib/rbtree.c
From: slavon @ 2007-09-02 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2]: [NET_SCHED]: Making rate table lookups more flexible.
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer @ 2007-09-02 18:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patrick McHardy
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David S. Miller
In-Reply-To: <46DACA48.2060602@trash.net>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>
>
>> 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.
>
> I know, but that discussion should happen *before* merging any
> changes to the kernel.
Let not try to solve too many things at once. We need to do this in small
steps. Please, lets not start long and borrowing discussion again, where
we try to solve too many things at once.
> Its pointless to add functionality that
> won't be used afterwards or may need to be done differently.
I believe that the functionality _will_ be used, also in the general case.
Lets focus on the general case, where the functionality actually is
needed right away.
In the general case:
- The rate table needs to be aligned (cell_align=-1).
(currently, we miscalculates up to 7 bytes on every lookup)
- The existing tc overhead calc can be made more accurate.
(by adding overhead before doing the lookup, instead of the
current solution where the rate table is modified with its
limited resolution)
Patrick, note that your STAB solution will _not_ work without the rate
table alignment.
See you!
Jesper Brouer
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MSc. Master of Computer Science
Dept. of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen
Author of http://www.adsl-optimizer.dk
-------------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply
* [BUG] spinlock lockup on kernel 2.6.23-rc4
From: slavon @ 2007-09-02 18:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Spinlock debug on in kernel. This all that say NETCONSOLE
Maybe some more info you needed?
Thanks.
[123345.401901] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#1, swapper/0, f7f6a200
[123345.402104] [<c01cc7b1>] _raw_spin_lock+0xbb/0xdc
[123345.402180] [<c0299619>] est_timer+0x21/0x11c
[123345.402254] [<c02995f8>] est_timer+0x0/0x11c
[123345.402324] [<c0125893>] run_timer_softirq+0xfa/0x15d
[123345.402399] [<c01225e2>] __do_softirq+0x5d/0xc1
[123345.402474] [<c0122678>] do_softirq+0x32/0x36
[123345.402543] [<c0111619>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x74/0x80
[123345.402625] [<c01033a8>] apic_timer_interrupt+0x28/0x30
[123345.402697] [<c01100d8>] smp_store_cpu_info+0x23/0xb7
[123345.402772] [<c0100d61>] mwait_idle_with_hints+0x3b/0x3f
[123345.402848] [<c0100d65>] mwait_idle+0x0/0xa
[123345.402921] [<c0100ea4>] cpu_idle+0x91/0xaa
[123345.402996] =======================
[123345.605427] BUG: spinlock lockup on CPU#0, swapper/0, f7f6a200
[123345.605496] [<c01cc7b1>] _raw_spin_lock+0xbb/0xdc
[123345.605568] [<c029cf8e>] dev_queue_xmit+0x158/0x2a6
[123345.605645] [<c02b94e3>] ip_output+0x281/0x2ba
[123345.605726] [<c02b679c>] dst_output+0x0/0x7
[123345.605798] [<c02b6b45>] ip_push_pending_frames+0x2f2/0x3b6
[123345.605875] [<c02b679c>] dst_output+0x0/0x7
[123345.605946] [<c02d3ff1>] icmp_send+0x30d/0x383
[123345.606019] [<c02ec46b>] _read_unlock_bh+0x5/0xd
[123345.606090] [<f881c5db>] ipt_do_table+0x41f/0x47c [ip_tables]
[123345.606171] [<c02b1cd5>] ip_route_input+0x3a/0xad9
[123345.606249] [<c02b59f9>] ip_forward+0x2af/0x2c6
[123345.606318] [<c02b571c>] ip_forward_finish+0x0/0x2e
[123345.606388] [<c02b4729>] ip_rcv+0x484/0x4bd
[123345.606459] [<c029ab9c>] netif_receive_skb+0x2cd/0x340
[123345.606532] [<c0234ef1>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x379/0x448
[123345.606611] [<c0234b78>] e1000_clean_rx_irq+0x0/0x448
[123345.606684] [<c0233f8f>] e1000_clean+0x7a/0x249
[123345.606755] [<c029ccad>] net_rx_action+0x91/0x17f
[123345.606825] [<c01225e2>] __do_softirq+0x5d/0xc1
[123345.606896] [<c0122678>] do_softirq+0x32/0x36
[123345.607077] [<c010488a>] do_IRQ+0x7e/0x90
[123345.607150] [<c0111619>] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x74/0x80
[123345.607223] [<c02ea9d5>] __sched_text_start+0x54d/0x5ba
[123345.607301] [<c01032eb>] common_interrupt+0x23/0x28
[123345.607371] [<c0100d61>] mwait_idle_with_hints+0x3b/0x3f
[123345.607441] [<c0100d65>] mwait_idle+0x0/0xa
[123345.607511] [<c0100ea4>] cpu_idle+0x91/0xaa
[123345.607581] [<c04098c8>] start_kernel+0x2d5/0x2dd
[123345.608946] [<c04090e0>] unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x195
[123345.609017] =======================
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Matthew Jacob @ 2007-09-02 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021754250.6772-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
the ability to modify the header (and thus the text of the licensing
as I had written) or not. On balance I'd say I believe that the
arguments for, on redistribution, picking one or the other license
makes sense and honored my general intent.
This allows people who modify the code (and presumably improve it) a
"chef's choice" based on where they're serving the meal.
IANAL, but I believe that none of this keeps me from continuing to put
a dual license on stuff I leave up for distribution, or changing that
to restricting the code to Martian Triathalon winners or what have
you.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Al Viro @ 2007-09-02 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Alan Cox, Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021446550.6181-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> >Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> >they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> >for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Exactly. That's what dual-licensing is.
[quote]
This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are
GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own,
you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to
them, and release them commercially.
And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those
*non*GPLv2 changes back.
[end quote]
That's from Linus and quite recently.
FWIW, it's damn hard to codify "... and changes to this code should not
change the situation". It's certainly a very good policy and in this
case it's the only sane policy.
[quote]
Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem
with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I
don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not
polite.
[end quote]
Same posting from Linus. And that's much more relevant to shooting the patch
in question down (and IMO it ought to be shot down) than references to
legality.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
From: Christian Kujau @ 2007-09-02 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: Christian Kujau, linux-kernel, netdev, johannes
In-Reply-To: <20070902171300.2f4814d1@oldman>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Vendor module calls kernel api incorrectly. dev_set_promiscuity requires
> that the calling thread hold rtnl mutex (ie call rtnl_lock). It's their bug,
> netdev doesn't want to hear about it.
OK, that's all I needed to know. Thank you both for your comments!
Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #435:
Internet shut down due to maintenance
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2007-09-02 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Kujau; +Cc: linux-kernel, netdev
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.0.999.0709021754290.7103@sheep.housecafe.de>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 18:05:33 +0200 (CEST)
Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> wrote:
> Wow, I should really update more often. Skipping the last -rc versions
> AND adding a new device (zd1211rw) to the box turns out to be quite
> interesting ([0],[1]).
>
> However, this time loading of a (proprietary) module is involved. Knowing
> that lkml cannot really help here (and I should contact vmware), I just
> wanted to let you netdev guys know, because the only occurences I found
> on the net were from 1999, but given the amount of changes currently
> going into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
>
> [15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
> [15604.137772] [<c0106aaa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
> [15604.138121] [<c0107682>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
> [15604.138449] [<c01076a5>] dump_stack+0x15/0x20
> [15604.138807] [<c038c612>] __dev_set_promiscuity+0xc2/0xd0
> [15604.139163] [<c038c9bb>] dev_set_promiscuity+0x1b/0x40
> [15604.139515] [<f91cb3fb>] VNetBridgeStartPromisc+0x2b/0x50 [vmnet]
Vendor module calls kernel api incorrectly. dev_set_promiscuity requires
that the calling thread hold rtnl mutex (ie call rtnl_lock). It's their bug,
netdev doesn't want to hear about it.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
From: Johannes Berg @ 2007-09-02 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Kujau; +Cc: linux-kernel, netdev
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.0.999.0709021754290.7103@sheep.housecafe.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 597 bytes --]
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 18:05 +0200, Christian Kujau wrote:
> but given the amount of changes currently
> going into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
>
> [15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
> [15604.138807] [<c038c612>] __dev_set_promiscuity+0xc2/0xd0
> [15604.139163] [<c038c9bb>] dev_set_promiscuity+0x1b/0x40
> [15604.139515] [<f91cb3fb>] VNetBridgeStartPromisc+0x2b/0x50 [vmnet]
Not sure why this would be interesting. Clearly, dev_set_promiscuity is
called without the RTNL held while it should be. And see who the caller
is?
johannes
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c
From: Christian Kujau @ 2007-09-02 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: netdev
Wow, I should really update more often. Skipping the last -rc versions
AND adding a new device (zd1211rw) to the box turns out to be quite
interesting ([0],[1]).
However, this time loading of a (proprietary) module is involved. Knowing
that lkml cannot really help here (and I should contact vmware), I just
wanted to let you netdev guys know, because the only occurences I found
on the net were from 1999, but given the amount of changes currently
going into net/ I thought this might be interesting:
[15604.137408] RTNL: assertion failed at net/core/dev.c (2595)
[15604.137772] [<c0106aaa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x30
[15604.138121] [<c0107682>] show_trace+0x12/0x20
[15604.138449] [<c01076a5>] dump_stack+0x15/0x20
[15604.138807] [<c038c612>] __dev_set_promiscuity+0xc2/0xd0
[15604.139163] [<c038c9bb>] dev_set_promiscuity+0x1b/0x40
[15604.139515] [<f91cb3fb>] VNetBridgeStartPromisc+0x2b/0x50 [vmnet]
[15604.139896] [<f91cb61a>] VNetBridgePortsChanged+0x2a/0x40 [vmnet]
[15604.140276] [<f91c9a65>] VNetHubPortsChanged+0x65/0xc0 [vmnet]
[15604.140648] [<f91c869a>] VNetConnect+0x7a/0xb0 [vmnet]
[15604.141000] [<f91c926d>] VNetFileOpOpen+0xbd/0x170 [vmnet]
[15604.141362] [<c016b213>] chrdev_open+0x83/0x180
[15604.141696] [<c0167321>] __dentry_open+0xa1/0x1a0
[15604.142036] [<c01674c5>] nameidata_to_filp+0x35/0x40
[15604.142383] [<c0167519>] do_filp_open+0x49/0x60
[15604.142717] [<c0167575>] do_sys_open+0x45/0x80
[15604.142957] [<c01675ec>] sys_open+0x1c/0x20
[15604.143087] [<c010598a>] sysenter_past_esp+0x6b/0xb5
[15604.143227] =======================
details: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.23-rc5/
Christian.
[0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg40247.html
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg40281.html
--
BOFH excuse #31:
cellular telephone interference
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Igor Sobrado @ 2007-09-02 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa, Alan Cox, Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <46DAC482.5090107-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
>> = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
>> it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
>> requirement, though.
>
> Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
>
> There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux.
Of course. Sharing knowledge and efforts can only improve both the GPL
and BSD licensed code. It is important in all cases, but becomes critical
when support from manufacturers is limited or even non existent. In these
cases, shared efforts are required to write successful code.
Cheers,
Igor.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 3/5] Net: ath5k, use int as retval
From: Nick Kossifidis @ 2007-09-02 15:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jiri Slaby
Cc: John W. Linville, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA
In-Reply-To: <46D9C6A8.7070600-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2007/9/1, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>:
> John W. Linville napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:09PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> ath5k, use int as retval
> >>
> >> Convert some functions to return int and proper negative return value on
> >> error as we are used to.
> >
> > Since I didn't apply 1/5, this one didn't apply either. It seems
> > fine overall, so if you rediff I'll be happy to apply.
>
> Ok, I'll do it, thanks,
Can somebody commit my resent changes from madwifi-svn (cleanups,
kconfig, remove_hw_ from filenames etc) ? I don't have git repository
;-(
--
GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB
As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-)
Nick
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Bodo Eggert @ 2007-09-02 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado, Adrian Bunk, Alan Cox, Constantine A. Murenin,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@
In-Reply-To: <8YWKF-4y9-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Igor Sobrado <igor@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> wrote:
> When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently.
No. E.g.:
If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost
it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because I have no
license to do that, but the BSD license would still allow me to redistribute.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH 2/2]: [NET_SCHED]: Making rate table lookups more flexible.
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2007-09-02 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer; +Cc: jdb, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David S. Miller
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0709012338320.29796@ask.diku.dk>
Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>
>> 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.
Mainly out of frustration/boredom with the discussion, I withdrew
that again later and even Russell agreed that this should be done
differently.
> 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.
I know, but that discussion should happen *before* merging any
changes to the kernel. Its pointless to add functionality that
won't be used afterwards or may need to be done differently.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-09-02 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Halasa
Cc: Igor Sobrado, Alan Cox, Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <m3642txj91.fsf-fiqtE+24Nu0B9AHHLWeGtNQXobZC6xk2@public.gmane.org>
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
> = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
> it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
> requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Krzysztof Halasa @ 2007-09-02 13:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Alan Cox, Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021446550.6181-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado <igor-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org> writes:
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
> single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal
to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD.
OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like:
The actual licence conditions:
GPL or BSD or whatever.
Portions of this file were licenced under:
[the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file]
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Alan Cox @ 2007-09-02 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021446550.6181-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
> > Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> > they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> > for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
If the dual licence permits you to select from two alternatives as
appears to be the case in
"* 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."
Then there is no problem in doing exactly what it says and distributing
it under the terms of the GPL v2 and the GPL v2 alone (or indeed the BSD
licence alone). Anyone who took the project code and produced a binary
only proprietary product from it would for example select the BSD licence
alone and convey almost no rights at all to their customer.
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
Assuming is bad, you should consult caselaw.
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have
> the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
If the author has conveyed that right to you, then you may usually do so.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-09-02 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Alan Cox, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel,
linux-wireless, netdev, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021446550.6181@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es>
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>>
>> Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
>> they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
>> for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Exactly.
>> A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
>> boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
>> ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
>> Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
>> according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
>> licensing terms concurrently".
>
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the
> ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
We have the ability if the author explicitely allowed it.
This is the licencing text we are talking about:
/*-
* 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.
*/
The author himself offered two _alternatives_ for distributing his code.
> Igor.
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
* 2.6.23-rc5: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
From: Christian Kujau @ 2007-09-02 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel; +Cc: netdev
Hi,
after upgrading to 2.6.23-rc5 (and applying davem's fix [0]), lockdep
was quite noisy when I tried to shape my external (wireless) interface:
[ 6400.534545] FahCore_78.exe/3552 just changed the state of lock:
[ 6400.534713] (&dev->ingress_lock){-+..}, at: [<c038d595>] netif_receive_skb+0x2d5/0x3c0
[ 6400.534941] but this lock took another, soft-read-irq-unsafe lock in the past:
[ 6400.535145] (police_lock){-.--}
This happened when I executed: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.23-rc5/qos.sh.txt
(using iproute2-ss070313). The is still running, I just noticed a short
hickup, probably when it was busy writing the warning to the disk.
More details and .config: http://nerdbynature.de/bits/2.6.23-rc5/
I'm not really sure what the application mentioned in the message above
has to do with this: the application[1] has been running since bootup as
a non-privileged user and did so for earlier kernel versions too.
Christian.
[0] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/2/6
[1] http://folding.stanford.edu/linux.html
--
BOFH excuse #294:
PCMCIA slave driver
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Igor Sobrado @ 2007-09-02 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <20070902134612.28a88761-v58gJUvfdfWUJIigds3554dd74u8MsAO@public.gmane.org>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>
> Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
BSD code if other parties want to do it?
> A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
> boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
> ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
> Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
> according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently".
I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
licensing terms.
We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have
the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
Igor.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Alan Cox @ 2007-09-02 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021416130.6181-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently".
Alan
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2007-09-02 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Adrian Bunk, Alan Cox, Constantine A. Murenin,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021416130.6181-wnk7FUYfzmtu2DZcH3qp6zJQgOOX0AMFMQBsIrBqeMw@public.gmane.org>
Igor Sobrado wrote:
> When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
> changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
> and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is
> illegal.
The plain English in the dual-license text directly contradicts this
fiction.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Alan Cox @ 2007-09-02 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Igor Sobrado
Cc: Constantine A. Murenin, Adrian Bunk, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel,
linux-wireless, netdev, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709021303001.4312@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es>
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado <igor@condmat1.ciencias.uniovi.es> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
> > the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
> > was permission to do so.
>
> There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
The code pieces I quoted contained that choice. As far as I am concerned
that is what the discussion was about.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From: Igor Sobrado @ 2007-09-02 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: Alan Cox, Constantine A. Murenin, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, Jiri Slaby
In-Reply-To: <20070902115041.GM16016-HeJ8Db2Gnd6zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
>> Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
>> terms (BSD).
>
> Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
> code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced.
Ok.
> You mixed two completely different things in your email:
>
> 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the
> BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced
> files.
>
> 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one
> licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break the law".
>
> Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion
> regarding this.
>
> The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel
> is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action
> by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct.
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is
illegal.
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
license that a modification of the distribution terms is illegal. It is
the first clause on the BSD license:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
* without modification.
So, removing (or changing) the list of conditions on the BSD license is
not allowed.
Igor.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Oops in 2.6.23-rc5
From: Christian Kujau @ 2007-09-02 12:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Herbert Xu; +Cc: linux-kernel, netdev, torvalds, davem
In-Reply-To: <E1IRgwF-0004G0-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Herbert Xu wrote:
> You want this patch (by davem).
I applied the patch and the box is up for 1hr now. Since I was able to
reproduce the oops pretty reliable with this bittorrent thingy, I
did the same a few times now, but the box did NOT crash :)
> Unfortunately people are travelling so I'm not sure when it'll
> get picked up by Linus.
I've seen this patch only in:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/70781
And, for the archives, a simliar looking error report:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/70777
Thanks for the quick reply, Herbert!
Christian.
--
BOFH excuse #297:
Too many interrupts
^ 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