Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 03:21:18AM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 00:54, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include <hallo.h>
> > * Joe Wreschnig [Tue, Jun 15 2004, 09:01:52PM]:
> > > > So, problem resolved. No need to remove anything.
> > >
> > > At best that solves a third of the problem. What about all the other
> > > copyright holders of the kernel, have they agreed to link with the
> > > non-GPLd code? (Before someone tells me kernel developers don't care, or
> > > "this isn't linking", ) And once the copyright issue is dealt with,
> > > there's still the issue of meeting the DFSG.
> > What exactly are you trying to proove with the mentioned link?
> People who hold copyrights on the Linux kernel view distribution of the
> kernel with proprietary firmware to be a violation of their license.
> Period. This is a fact: _Copyright holders of material Debian is
> distributing believe we are doing so in violation of the license they
> have granted us_. This is a serious problem, both in terms of BTS
> severity and most legal codes.
Who actually objects to this that has contributed signifigant code to
the kernel? Is there a list, and what they have contributed?
> Debian has a policy of trying to honor the copyright holder's
> interpretation of a license, both because we want to avoid lawsuits, and
> because (I like to think) we like to be nice to the developers whose
> software we distribute. In some really blatantly stupid cases like SCO,
> we rebut them. But I don't think Adam's case is stupid, and you're