Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :
* Josh Triplett (email@example.com) [040617 23:55]:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
>> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
>> for a large percentage of users. Those users turn to other
> Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware, or
> for violating the GPL or any other license; at one point, many
> people "needed" netscape, but that doesn't mean netscape should
> have been in main. In any case, the tg3 driver works fine without
> the firmware on most cards it supports; the firmware is only
> needed in a few cases.
Please seperate two issues: 1. Are we distributing undistributalbe
1.a. Yes. Some of the firmware are there without a proper
1.b. But not in the case where the firmware is there with a
redistributable albeit non-free license. In this case, the file *is*
*distributable* because _nor_ is the firmware derivative of the kernel
1.c. The question is still open where the firmware is there, properly
GPL-licensed by its copyright owner but without source.
Flamewars^WEnlightening discussions follow if it's the preferred form
for modification or not.
2. Are we distributing non-free files in main?
In the cases b and c above? Yes.
This discussion was about 1., not about 2.