On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 05:25:30PM -0400, Allan Wind wrote: > On 2004-04-15T16:04:30+1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The right thing to do is to fix the drivers so they load the firmware > > from userspace so that the GPL is clearly not violated, using the existing > > API to manage that. This can be done for most drivers after the system's > > booted, and for most other drivers from the initrd. > I do not understand why changing the dependency from compile-time to > run-time makes any difference. If we cannot distribute the source with > the embedded firmware, then we cannot distribute the firmware alone > either unless the licenses is clarified (GPL is no good, as it violates > clause 3). And to expand on aj's later thread, how can GPL cover > derrived work when that work contradicts the license? FWIW, this is my impression as well; but it doesn't look like there's still pressing concern about GPL compatibility here, just about DFSG-compliance, which would seem to require splitting the firmware out at some point so that we can keep our kernels in main. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature