Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-free firmware

[John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>]

Nathanael Nerode writes:
> For these so-called "GPLed" binaries, we should ask the copyright holders
> if they were *really* written as binary blobs.  If they say "yes", let's
> believe them.  If they say "no", then the binaries are undistributable.

I wrote:
> Unless they grant explicit permission.  Then they would be distributable
> but still non-DFSG.

Herbert Xu writes:
> Huh? Please show me where the DFSG prohibits people from writing binary
> blobs.

I said no such thing.  I was responding to Nathanael's last sentence above
where he refers to GPL'd binaries that were _not_ written as binaries.

If you write something in C, compile it to binary, and distribute it under
the GPL with an explicit permission to redistribute[1] despite the absence
of source then it is distributable.  However, it is non-DFSG due to the
absence of source.

If you write something directly in binary and distribute it under the GPL
it is both distributable and DFSG-compliant.



[1] Thomas Hood pointed out that the act of distributing the blob under the
GPL could be construed as implicit permission to redistribute.
-- 
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI