[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release

* 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: