gnewsense-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnewsense-dev] [KERNEL] report on actual bugs


From: Karl Goetz
Subject: Re: [Gnewsense-dev] [KERNEL] report on actual bugs
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:14:53 +0930

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:24:11 +0200
Sam Geeraerts <address@hidden> wrote:

> crap0101 schreef:
> > Hi!
> > Here's a report about open bug regarding the kernel:
> > 
> > * (mach64.h) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00212 
> > 
> > About the mach64.h bug, there's no news.  I and the fsf licencing
> > team have tried to contact ATI, but no answer yet.
> > If someone have technical/licence knowledge useful for this, please
> > share it :) 
> 
> After this long it's doubtful that you'll get an answer back. The FSF
> have said it's better to remove it then [1]. It might be worth it to
> let ATI know that we're removing it. Maybe they respond better to
> actions than to words (if they care at all).

I'll try and remove it, and see if I succeed.
I've marked this as open, and a blocker for deltah (2.3).

> > * (mroute.h) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00287
> > 
> > Regarding mroute, I wrote also in the linux-libre mailing list,
> > this is the A. Oliva answer
> > http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2009-June/000654.html
> > about. Like suggested, I took a look into the mroute package, but
> > like said in the bug's page, the fragmentetion make difficult to
> > find the lines of code used in the lnux version. This may take some
> > time (I still don`t do that).
> > More info about this bug:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg04177.html
> 
> As Alexandre said, it's not certain that this code was taken directly 
> from mroute and it would be a good idea to check how it came into
> Linux in the first place. You might want to contact Linux Kernel
> Newbies [1] to get an idea of how to go about that.

I've set this to 'normal', and won't consider it a blocker for 2.3. If
new information comes up showing it to be non-free the status can be
changed.

> > * (cfi.h) http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00243
> > 
> > mailing the linux-libre list, A. Oliva said that's not a bug:
> > http://www.fsfla.org/pipermail/linux-libre/2009-June/000653.html
> > what do you think?
> > 
> >> [...]
> 
> Contrary to what I said when you first brought this issue up, I tend
> to agree with Alexandre. As I understand it, this file was created
> with the help of information that may be patented, but it's not a
> copy of some non-free code. So it's different from the mach64 case,
> where (possibly) some code was copied from one or more examples.

I'm not going to diverge from lxo without some good proof that its
worth our while, so I'm going to close this bug.
Feel free to re-open it if you feel its still a serious issue.
kk

-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]