* Glenn Maynard (g_deb@zewt.org) wrote: > "We can't reasonably get permission to do this" does *not* mean "therefore > let's just assume we have it". Debian makes a strong effort not to be > that sloppy and careless with licensing. We're making a strong effort to paint ourselves into a corner we can't get out of. We *need* a clarification. This assumption of the worst possible isn't acceptable or even reasonable. Given that we need a clarification the best we can do is get it from Linus. > It's clear to me that it doesn't have the weight of copyright holder, > if any GPL code owned by a third party has been integrated into the kernel > by kernel developers. It certainly has the weight of *a* copyright holder, and the distributor we receive it from. [...] > Neither John, Linus, nor the kernel developer body as a whole have the > right to be "clarifying" the license of my code. If I had personally > sent it off to Linus to be included, it might be different, but I, the > copyright holder, never interacted with any of those people. In this situation do you see yourself as likely to sue Debian or to claim we're not agreeing to your license by receiving from Linus and redistributing Linux with firmware blobs, which it isn't clear as to if they're unacceptable to the GPL or not? Personally, I doubt it, which is my point, there's something to be said for mitigating risk but it's entirely different from assuming the worst and somehow trying to work with it. By forcing us to assume the worst you've put us in a position that's not realistic and not workable. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature