Re: kernel firmware status
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 08:56:56 -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
> Andrew Suffield wrote:
>
[...]
>
> >>> The firmware contained herein as keyspan_*.h is
> >>> ...
> >>> Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of
> >>> this firmware image as part of a Linux or other Open
> >>> Source operating system kernel in text or binary form
> >>> as required.
> >>> ...
> >>> This firmware may not be modified and may only be
> >>> used with Keyspan hardware. Distribution and/or
> >>> Modification of the keyspan.c driver which includes
> >>> this firmware, in whole or in part, requires the
> >>> inclusion of this statement."
> >
> >
> >Finally, one with a real license. It's obviously non-free,
> >but I see no reason why it can't be distributed in non-free,
> >with the usual provisos about proprietary drivers being
> >entirely unsupportable.
>
> As I said before, it seems to me that is not distributable
> /unless/ within a whole copy of the kernel; ie neither in a
> kernel-modules-nonfree nor in a keyspan-module-nonfree
> packages.
>
Hm, I'm not sure I agree with that. It doesn't say it requires a
*complete* kernel; nor does it say it requires Linux specifically. We're
distributing the kernel in parts; kernel-source-nonfree is definitely part
of an open source kernel (albeit just drivers for hardware). I could see
this argued both ways.
Of course, I can contact them and ask them to modify the license as well.
This falls in line w/ Sven's request[0] for an example license to propose
to firmware copyright holders that will satisfy the requirements of the
kernel, and our non-free distribution. Obviously, something like the BSD
license is doable, but the firmware authors seem to want to ensure that
the firmware remain unmodified, and/or only be used with their specific
hardware.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00152.html
Reply to: