Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in the kernel package?

[Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>]

@ 18/06/2004 05:45 : wrote Andreas Barth :

>  * Josh Triplett (josh.trip@verizon.net) [040617 23:55]:
>
> > Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> >> You speak as if this has no negative effects. In fact, it does.
> >> By removing, let's say, the tg3 driver, you make Debian unusable
> >> for a large percentage of users. Those users turn to other
> >> distributions
> >>
> > Usefulness is not an excuse for distributing non-free sofware, or
> > for violating the GPL or any other license; at one point, many
> > people "needed" netscape, but that doesn't mean netscape should
> > have been in main. In any case, the tg3 driver works fine without
> > the firmware on most cards it supports; the firmware is only
> > needed in a few cases.
>
>
>  Please seperate two issues: 1. Are we distributing undistributalbe
>  files?

1.a. Yes. Some of the firmware are there without a proper 
redistributable license.

1.b. But not in the case where the firmware is there with a 
redistributable albeit non-free license. In this case, the file *is* 
*distributable* because _nor_ is the firmware derivative of the kernel 
_nor_ /vice-versa/.

1.c. The question is still open where the firmware is there, properly 
GPL-licensed by its copyright owner but without source. 
Flamewars^WEnlightening discussions follow if it's the preferred form 
for modification or not.

>  2. Are we distributing non-free files in main?

In the cases b and c above? Yes.

>  This discussion was about 1., not about 2.
>
>
>  Cheers, Andi



--
br,M