On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:00:48PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Oliver Kurth <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > But you do not seem to see my point: the human readable sources of the > > firmware files are _not_ open. The hex files, ie. the compiled form, > > in ACSII format they say _are_ GPL'ed (despite the disclaimer in those > > files, see above). > > What you're missing is that if one applies the GPL is applied to > compiled code alone, it does not give any permission to distribute > at all. GPL allows compiled code to be distributed only if it is > accompanied with source, which these firmware files are not according > to the GPL's own definition. So in this context GPL is equivalent to > "no permission to distribute". > > That may not be a problem for the original author (who, owning the > copyright, can permit himself to distribute no matter what the license > he offers to others say), but it is certainly a problem for Debian. > > Sourceless GPLed code cannot be distributed even in non-free. Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free? Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to programming ;-) ) Is there any way to get this into main, maybe regarding the fact that this code is not run on the host but just on the device? I think Atmel would be open to change the license, but I do not think they will give the source to their holy (and btw buggy) firmware. Also CC'ing deebian-legal. Greetings, Oliver -- .''`. : :' : Oliver Kurth email@example.com `. `' Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.org `- When sending passwords, please use my gpg key. That's what it's good for.
Description: Digital signature