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", [0]) 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. 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 advocating outright ignoring the problem rather than responding to it. > The same > guesses about guesses about assumptions about expectations as we have on > debian-devel with some confused GPL fans (trying to construct a > DSFG-violation case for free GPLed data files). I cannot parse this sentence. Please tell me why we should ignore Adam's statement that he believes we are infringing upon his license. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part