* Glenn Maynard (g_deb@zewt.org) wrote: > On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 04:42:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Certainly you can develop a case where it's not possible to get > > clarification on the license. That's not constructive or necessary imv. > > If it's the case, then it's the case. "Inconvenient" does not imply > "false", whether we like it or not. > > "I don't like that, so we should ignore it" isn't a convincing argument. If we make a reasonable attempt to get clarification on the license the kernel is distributed under from the *source* of the kernel tarballs that we use then that should mitigate the risk. No, it won't remove all risk like getting agreeing clarification from everyone but that's not reasonable to do in this case as you pointed out. > > Clarification from Linus on the kernel's license is sufficient for me, > > and should be for Debian. > > If Linus is not legally capable of making this clarification for all of the > code in question, then Debian must not pretend otherwise, and I see no > evidence that he is. Linus is where we receive the source from, is the originator of the kernel, originally decided the license it was going to be under, and may very well have the largest percentage of direct copyright in the work. It's clear, to me at least, that his interpretation has some weight. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature