Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!
cs.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!a.site.name!trumpet-user
From: trumpet-u...@a.site.name (Default Trumpet User)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Specialix driver
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 20:24:31 GMT
Organization: An Organization Name
Lines: 7
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.150.88.219
Summary: Is there a linux driver for specialix cards
Keywords: specialix driver
I have a specialix si intelligent i/o card with 32 ports. We would like
to use this as a slip server via dos or linux. Are there any linux drivers
for this card? Do any of the specialix drivers work on linux?
Thanks
Shawn G. Doughty
doug...@cis.nmclites.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!
slxinc!jonb
From: j...@specialix.com (Jon Brawn)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 22:14:47 GMT
Message-ID: <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name>
Keywords: specialix driver
Lines: 25
trumpet-u...@a.site.name (Default Trumpet User) writes:
> I have a specialix si intelligent i/o card with 32 ports. We would like
>to use this as a slip server via dos or linux. Are there any linux drivers
>for this card? Do any of the specialix drivers work on linux?
> Thanks
> Shawn G. Doughty
> doug...@cis.nmclites.edu
Not to my knowledge.
The driver for a the Specialix SI comes in two parts. The first is the operating
system device driver, the second is the download code.
IF Specialix were to write a driver for SI on Linux, we could NOT release the
source of the download code into the public domain AT ALL. We COULD supply a
binary file with it in. The Linux driver source would be made available.
WOULD this be legal?
Comments?
Jon Brawn, senior engineer, Specialix International
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
news.umbc.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ub!ns.potsdam.edu!news.potsdam.edu!nelson
From: nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Date: 21 Feb 1994 20:15:45 GMT
Organization: SUNY Potsdam
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <NELSON.94Feb21151545@crynwr.crynwr.com>
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.143.201.14
In-reply-to: jonb@specialix.com's message of Thu, 17 Feb 1994 22:14:47 GMT
In article <CLE34n....@specialix.com> j...@specialix.com (Jon Brawn) writes:
doug...@cis.nmclites.edu (Shawn G. Doughty) writes:
> I have a specialix si intelligent i/o card with 32 ports. We
>would like to use this as a slip server via dos or linux. Are
>there any linux drivers for this card? Do any of the specialix
>drivers work on linux?
Not to my knowledge.
The driver for a the Specialix SI comes in two parts. The first is
the operating system device driver, the second is the download
code.
IF Specialix were to write a driver for SI on Linux, we could NOT
release the source of the download code into the public domain AT
ALL. We COULD supply a binary file with it in. The Linux driver
source would be made available.
WOULD this be legal?
Yes. The linux driver source needs to be GPL'ed because it gets linked
into the kernel. Your download code uses no GPL'ed code and so you can
use whatever copyright you want.
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!
rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<NELSON.94Feb21151545@crynwr.crynwr.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 01:42:25 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <NELSON.94Feb21151...@crynwr.crynwr.com> nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com
(Russell Nelson) writes:
>In article <CLE34n....@specialix.com> j...@specialix.com (Jon Brawn) writes:
> IF Specialix were to write a driver for SI on Linux, we could NOT
> release the source of the download code into the public domain AT
> ALL. We COULD supply a binary file with it in. The Linux driver
> source would be made available.
>
> WOULD this be legal?
>
>Yes. The linux driver source needs to be GPL'ed because it gets linked
>into the kernel. Your download code uses no GPL'ed code and so you can
>use whatever copyright you want.
This is wrong. So long as Specialix doesn't bind any of their code with
GPL'd code in the driver, the driver needn't be GPL'd either. What they
can't do is distribute a complete Linux with their driver if they don't
provide GPL'd source to the driver.
Think of the GPL as a virus (I do ;-). How has the GPL been able to
"infect" the Specialix driver? If the answer is "It hasn't", the driver
need not be GPL'd itself. Independent object files are not "derived"
code, and in order for the GPL to "infect", the work must be "derived"
from GPL'd code.
--
John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ] @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!super!becker
From: bec...@super.org (Donald J. Becker)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <1994Feb22.173853.19781@super.org>
Keywords: specialix driver
Sender: n...@super.org (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: descartes
Organization: IDA Supercomputing Research Center
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 17:38:53 GMT
Lines: 40
In article <CLE34n....@specialix.com>, Jon Brawn <j...@specialix.com> wrote:
>trumpet-u...@a.site.name (Default Trumpet User) writes:
>The driver for a the Specialix SI comes in two parts. The first is the
>operating system device driver, the second is the download code.
>IF Specialix were to write a driver for SI on Linux, we could NOT release the
>source of the download code into the public domain AT ALL. We COULD supply a
>binary file with it in. The Linux driver source would be made available.
>
>WOULD this be legal?
Note: I am not qualified to offer the following advice;->
If your downloaded code implements a defined, public interface that's used
by several operating systems, it probably doesn't fall under the GPL.
A Linux device driver, on the other hand, is an integral and
inseparable(1) part of the Linux kernel. By the terms of the GPL it must be
released in source form.
I think Linux kernel license meets your release requirements.
Responding to some of the other followups: 'modules', a mechanism loadable
kernel device drivers, does not change the terms of the GPL. Both the letter
and the intent of the GPL is to insure source-code-available distributions.
A loadable module is designed to work integrally and inseparably with only
the Linux kernel, and merely distributing it separately does not relieve it
of the GPL obligations. The difference in method by which a 'modules'
device driver is integrated with the remainder of the kernel (a run-time
linkage vs. a kernel-compile-time linkage) is minor and irrelevant.
(1) The legal and common technical definitions inseparable differ: just
because functions can be divided into separate source/object files
doesn't make them separable.
--
Donald Becker bec...@super.org
IDA Supercomputing Research Center
17100 Science Drive, Bowie MD 20715 301-805-7482
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!prism!gt8134b
From: gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU (Robert Sanders)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <140887@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 23 Feb 94 23:59:42 GMT
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<NELSON.94Feb21151545@crynwr.crynwr.com> <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386>
Sender: n...@prism.gatech.EDU
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Lines: 54
jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>In article <NELSON.94Feb21151...@crynwr.crynwr.com> nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com
(Russell Nelson) writes:
>>
>>Yes. The linux driver source needs to be GPL'ed because it gets linked
>>into the kernel. Your download code uses no GPL'ed code and so you can
>>use whatever copyright you want.
>This is wrong. So long as Specialix doesn't bind any of their code with
>GPL'd code in the driver, the driver needn't be GPL'd either. What they
>can't do is distribute a complete Linux with their driver if they don't
>provide GPL'd source to the driver.
>Think of the GPL as a virus (I do ;-). How has the GPL been able to
>"infect" the Specialix driver? If the answer is "It hasn't", the driver
>need not be GPL'd itself. Independent object files are not "derived"
>code, and in order for the GPL to "infect", the work must be "derived"
>from GPL'd code.
I'm surprised that with the recent silliness over the Shadow suite that
you haven't heard some of the more recent interpretations. RMS and
others maintain that any program written to use an interface which
is solely available under the GPL is to be considered a derived work.
For example, if the only C library were glibc, and it was under the GPL
and not the GLPL, until someone wrote a non-GPL'ed libc, any code that
used printf() would be a derived work. For more on this, ask about
the gmp debacle on gnu.misc.discuss.
I would posit that the Linux kernel is the only available implementation
of the Linux kernel interface. The Linux kernel is GPL'ed, therefore
any driver written to interface with the kernel is GPL'ed. Russ's
assertion is correct in the eyes of the FSF.
I don't think anyone likes this situation, but if this decision
hadn't been made, the GPL would be in danger of becoming entirely toothless.
With some thought it becomes apparent that any program that allows
some external interface, such as Linux and its modules code, would
be providing a "back door" to circumvent the GPL. "It's not a
derived work," you say, "because it can be distributed separately."
If any driver added to the kernel had to be statically linked in,
however, the legal status of the driver might seem different, but
in reality it should be no different. Think of the driver as a binary
patch and it might look different.
Of course, you're not even arguing that far. You say that even .o
that are only intended to link into a GPL'ed program need not be GPL'ed.
Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, please.
--
_g, '96 --->>>>>>>>>> gt81...@prism.gatech.edu <<<<<<<<<--- CompSci ,g_
W@@@W__ |-\ ^ | disclaimer: <---> "Bow before ZOD!" __W@@@W
W@@@@**~~~' ro|-<ert s/_\ nders | who am I??? ^ from Superman '~~~**@@@@W
`*MV' hi,ocie! |-/ad! / \ss!! | ooga ooga!! | II (cool)! `VW*'
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!
slxinc!jonb
From: j...@specialix.com (Jon Brawn)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 04:20:55 GMT
Message-ID: <CLpo2v.9sv@specialix.com>
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<NELSON.94Feb21151545@crynwr.crynwr.com> <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386>
<140887@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Lines: 57
gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU (Robert Sanders) writes:
>jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <NELSON.94Feb21151...@crynwr.crynwr.com> nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com
(Russell Nelson) writes:
>>>
>>>Yes. The linux driver source needs to be GPL'ed because it gets linked
>>>into the kernel. Your download code uses no GPL'ed code and so you can
>>>use whatever copyright you want.
>>This is wrong. So long as Specialix doesn't bind any of their code with
>>GPL'd code in the driver, the driver needn't be GPL'd either. What they
>>can't do is distribute a complete Linux with their driver if they don't
>>provide GPL'd source to the driver.
>>Think of the GPL as a virus (I do ;-). How has the GPL been able to
>>"infect" the Specialix driver? If the answer is "It hasn't", the driver
>>need not be GPL'd itself. Independent object files are not "derived"
>>code, and in order for the GPL to "infect", the work must be "derived"
>>from GPL'd code.
>I'm surprised that with the recent silliness over the Shadow suite that
>you haven't heard some of the more recent interpretations. RMS and
>others maintain that any program written to use an interface which
>is solely available under the GPL is to be considered a derived work.
>For example, if the only C library were glibc, and it was under the GPL
>and not the GLPL, until someone wrote a non-GPL'ed libc, any code that
>used printf() would be a derived work. For more on this, ask about
>the gmp debacle on gnu.misc.discuss.
>I would posit that the Linux kernel is the only available implementation
>of the Linux kernel interface. The Linux kernel is GPL'ed, therefore
>any driver written to interface with the kernel is GPL'ed. Russ's
>assertion is correct in the eyes of the FSF.
>I don't think anyone likes this situation, but if this decision
>hadn't been made, the GPL would be in danger of becoming entirely toothless.
>With some thought it becomes apparent that any program that allows
>some external interface, such as Linux and its modules code, would
>be providing a "back door" to circumvent the GPL. "It's not a
>derived work," you say, "because it can be distributed separately."
>If any driver added to the kernel had to be statically linked in,
>however, the legal status of the driver might seem different, but
>in reality it should be no different. Think of the driver as a binary
>patch and it might look different.
>Of course, you're not even arguing that far. You say that even .o
>that are only intended to link into a GPL'ed program need not be GPL'ed.
No, thats NOT what I'm looking at. What I'm after is the implications as far
as supplying a binary file containing the download code (`microcode') for the
serial I/O card, without documentation or source for either the download code
or even the interface to the download code. (We sell a package documenting
the card's interface, which comes with examples of how to use the download
code. We never distribute source to the download code).
>Followups to gnu.misc.discuss, please.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: The GNU Public Virus rides again! (was Re: Specialix driver)
Message-ID: <1994Feb26.013334.27351@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name>
<NELSON.94Feb21151545@crynwr.crynwr.com> <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386>
<140887@hydra.gatech.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 01:33:34 GMT
Lines: 27
In article <140...@hydra.gatech.edu>,
Robert Sanders <gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU> wrote:
>I'm surprised that with the recent silliness over the Shadow suite that
>you haven't heard some of the more recent interpretations. RMS and
>others maintain that any program written to use an interface which
>is solely available under the GPL is to be considered a derived work.
>For example, if the only C library were glibc, and it was under the GPL
>and not the GLPL, until someone wrote a non-GPL'ed libc, any code that
>used printf() would be a derived work. For more on this, ask about
>the gmp debacle on gnu.misc.discuss.
Damn.
It's a real shame that I don't have the email RMS sent me a couple of years
ago, saying how they'd NEVER do this; the FSF would only consider a program to
be infected by the GPV if it textually included "significant" chunks of GPV'ed
code. On that basis, I agreed that the GPV wasn't as virulent as I'd thought.
Looks like they either changed their mind or simply pulled the wool over my
eyes.
Looks like it's time to go home and scrub Linux off of the machine I built up
to run it...
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!ddj
From: d...@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <CLuyGn.7KB.3@cs.cmu.edu>
Keywords: specialix driver
Sender: n...@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: itc.cs.cmu.edu
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<1994Feb22.173853.19781@super.org> <2kku6k$2q2@zeus.achilles.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 00:53:10 GMT
Lines: 20
>>of the GPL obligations. The difference in method by which a 'modules'
>>device driver is integrated with the remainder of the kernel (a run-time
>>linkage vs. a kernel-compile-time linkage) is minor and irrelevant.
>
>(Not intended to start a flame war or anything, but just interested in
>clarificaton)
>
> Let's say I run Linux, and one of it's system calls is unique to the OS
>(It could be another OS like VSTa for example). If I use that unique system
>call, would my code need to be GPLed under the GPL? I'm not exactly sure if
>Linux has unique (non-public) syscalls, but couldn't that potentially cause
>problems?
That's my understanding, yes. So, you should be *really* careful to
make sure you just use POSIX interfaces. Then there should be no
problem.
--
Doug DeJulio
d...@cmu.edu
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!
igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!hedrick
From: hedr...@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Keywords: specialix driver
Message-ID: <Feb.26.23.28.19.1994.156@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 27 Feb 94 04:28:20 GMT
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<1994Feb22.173853.19781@super.org> <2kku6k$2q2@zeus.achilles.org>
<CLuyGn.7KB.3@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 23
d...@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>> Let's say I run Linux, and one of it's system calls is unique to the OS
>>(It could be another OS like VSTa for example). If I use that unique system
>>call, would my code need to be GPLed under the GPL? ...
>That's my understanding, yes. ...
PLEASE, can't people read the notices. With the Linux kernel sources
comes a file COPYING. It contains the GPL, but there is a paragraph
before it:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Linus Torvalds
Why are we having arguments over absurd interpretations of the GPL
when Linus has clarified the interpretation that actually applies to
Linux?
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <1994Feb28.152017.26634@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver for the Denver community. The University has neither
control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: specialix driver
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <2kku6k$2q2@zeus.achilles.org>
<CLuyGn.7KB.3@cs.cmu.edu> <Feb.26.23.28.19.1994.156@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 15:20:17 GMT
Lines: 13
In article <Feb.26.23.28.19.1994....@athos.rutgers.edu>,
Charles Hedrick <hedr...@athos.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Why are we having arguments over absurd interpretations of the GPL
>when Linus has clarified the interpretation that actually applies to
>Linux?
Because others are exhorting people to use the GPV to license their code, and
so the question "Is the GPV a Good Thing?" is relevant.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <1994Feb28.200558.16874@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386> <140887@hydra.gatech.EDU>
<DHOLLAND.94Feb25034736@husc7.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 20:05:58 GMT
Lines: 28
In article <DHOLLAND.94Feb25034...@husc7.harvard.edu> dholl...@husc7.harvard.edu
(David Holland) writes:
>
>gt81...@prism.gatech.EDU's message of 23 Feb 94 23:59:42 GMT said:
>
> > I would posit that the Linux kernel is the only available implementation
> > of the Linux kernel interface. The Linux kernel is GPL'ed, therefore
> > any driver written to interface with the kernel is GPL'ed. Russ's
> > assertion is correct in the eyes of the FSF.
>
>All right. The Linux kernel is the only available implementation that
>will run Linux binaries. Therefore Linux binaries have been created to
>interface with the Linux kernel. The Linux kernel is GPL'd. Therefore,
>everything which has ever been compiled to run under Linux is
>automatically GPL'd.
No the Linux interface is hardly unique and specialy at a functional level.
In addition the interface to Linux is specifically not GPL'd. The whole
issue is a bit of a mess. It's easy to see what RMS means to accomplish
but not how its interpreted. Certainly I regard the two issues as
seperate. I'm dubious about GPL forcibly applying to modules however..
>
>So much for those commercial applications. Good thing BSD4.4-Lite is
>coming out soon.
4.4-Lite is an irrelevance, its just more goodies and extensions for the
NetBSD people
Alan
iii...@pyr.swan.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!
howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: The GNU Public Virus rides again! (was Re: Specialix driver)
Message-ID: <1994Feb28.202105.17866@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <1994Feb22.014225.4604@rpp386> <140887@hydra.gatech.edu>
<1994Feb26.013334.27351@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 20:21:05 GMT
Lines: 18
In article <1994Feb26.013334.27...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu
(Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>It's a real shame that I don't have the email RMS sent me a couple of years
>ago, saying how they'd NEVER do this; the FSF would only consider a program to
>be infected by the GPV if it textually included "significant" chunks of GPV'ed
>code. On that basis, I agreed that the GPV wasn't as virulent as I'd thought.
>Looks like they either changed their mind or simply pulled the wool over my
>eyes.
>
>Looks like it's time to go home and scrub Linux off of the machine I built up
>to run it...
Not really the library is LGPL/BSD/PD and the kernel is Linus and co code
which RMS and the FSF don't own and have little say over.
Alan
iii...@pyr.swan.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!ub!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!
cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Specialix driver
Message-ID: <1994Mar1.143313.25803@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <trumpet-user.1.2D6280FE@a.site.name> <CLE34n.866@specialix.com>
<2kd0m4$9q@melchior.frmug.fr.net>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 14:33:13 GMT
Lines: 19
In article <2kd0m4...@melchior.frmug.fr.net> tho...@melchior.frmug.fr.net
(Thomas Quinot) writes:
>Jon Brawn (j...@specialix.com) wrote:
>: IF Specialix were to write a driver for SI on Linux, we could NOT release the
>: source of the download code into the public domain AT ALL. We COULD supply a
>: binary file with it in. The Linux driver source would be made available.
>
>But... Why couldn't you license it under the GNU General Public License ?
>This has nothing to do with public domain, and Linux is _not_ public domain
>software...
It would be OK I guess, not ideal and I don't like it - I certainly wouldn't
buy the card. Given that some of the other manufacturers pretty much said
'Of course we give you documentation, its standard' [That's a quote from
a man from Accent who do a nice smart 8 port card]. I ceased to have the need
for more than 6 ports so I got an accent 4 port card to go with my 2 other
ports but they if anything sounded keen on the idea.
Alan
iii...@pyr.swan.ac.uk