Re: ipw2100 firmware distributable?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ipw2100 firmware distributable?
- From: Marco Franzen <Marco.Franzen@bigfoot.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:26:21 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 40BC4BBD.7060607@localhost>
- In-reply-to: <20040531211614.H1595@links.magenta.com>
- References: <email@example.com> <20040531121122.GA3520@coyote.mmweg.rwth-aachen.de> <20040531132927.GA8888@nandini.home> <40BB6F95.9070301@localhost> <20040531211614.H1595@links.magenta.com>
Raul Miller wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 06:47:01PM +0100, Marco Franzen wrote:
Right: If something needs special permission, it is non-free and can at
most go into non-free. But since non-free is not part of debian (the
distribution), special permission only for distributing it *in* debian
would be useless in any case. (But that is likely not what was meant.)
Something can be in debian archives which are not a part of a debian
distribution. For example, the bts, mailing list archives (including
debian-private which isn't publically accessible), and so on.
But it would depend on what the special permission "to distribute [it]
in debian" were later construed to have meant. It does sound very much
like "to put [it] in the debian distribution". I thought this might be a
potential lawyer bomb that could be avoided easily by wording the
request for permission slightly differently.
Nobody would be likely to sue for this reason, but someone looking for a
reason to sue (tentacles of evil etc) might just be happy to find one.