Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
On Sunday 06 August 2006 21:21, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
wrote:
> >> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the
> >> >> release team
> >> >
> >> > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
> >>
> >> How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation making the
> >> thing illegal to distribute?
> >
> > I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
> > true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
> > me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
> >
> > --
> > ciao,
> > Marco
>
> I hope you do believe this to be true. Otherwise you would need to go
> back to NM and do the licensing section again. There can be no doubt
> that binaries without source or even a "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" notice
> break the GPL.
>
> As to being a problem that depends if anyone ever sues, which is
> indeed unlikely.
>
> But Debian has also made a promise that main will be free. And the
> kernel breaks that.
Ok. Looks like we need to move the kernel to non-free. Good thing nothing
important depends on it.
Cheers
Andrew
Reply to: