RE: Copyright infringement in linux/drivers/usb/serial/keyspan*fw.h
> i wonder if it would be worth speaking with the people from keyspan/etc. and
> explaining the problem to them? who knows - an appropriately worded message
> (or 10) would probably convince them to release it under a less restrictive
> license. the code itself isn't very useful is it? then again it's binary
> only, isn't it.
I'm all for settling this peaceably, but Adam's description makes it
seem like that's not going to happen.
> i'd be inclined to leave the kernel source alone as if it's ok for AC then
> it should be ok for us too. i don't think there's much risk in doing this as
> about the worst that is likely to happen is a take down order. having said
> that i'm all for filing it as a bug, but i'd give it a fairly low priority
> (non-critical/wishlist).
Well, it is a clear policy violation. That makes it priority:serious.
Also, it is not just debian, but all of the people who mirror debian
or (especially) build CD's who will get in trouble. That's why we
tend to be strict. Granted, the likelihood of actually getting in
trouble is low. Of course, that's what people thought about pine.
> if we make a habit of respecting such licenses to the letter (usb/dvd/etc.)
> then we're going to end up with one very boring/unfriendly O/S indeed. (yeah
> your device is supported but first you need to go download a few bytes of
> firmware from X, and recompile a module or the kernel itself).
>
> - samj
Debian always respects licenses to the letter. That's all we have to
go on. Yes, it sucks to have to search the net to find support for
strange hardware. I had to do it for my (f**king!!!) winmodem.
That's what life is like when you buy things from companies that don't
play nice with others.
Regards,
Walter Landry
landry@physics.utah.edu
Reply to: