Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
- To: Jeff Garzik <email@example.com>
- Cc: Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Greg KH <email@example.com>, Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Poole <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jes Sorensen <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
- From: Sven Luther <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 22:27:06 +0200
- Message-id: <20050404202706.GB3140@pegasos>
- In-reply-to: <42519BCB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20050404100929.GA23921@pegasos> <email@example.com> <20050404141647.GA28649@pegasos> <20050404175130.GA11257@kroah.com> <20050404183909.GI18349@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <42519BCB.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:55PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >>Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
> >>problem, or the ones discussing it.
> >Actually, there are some legitimate problems with some of the files in
> >the Linux source base. Last time this came up, the Acenic firmware was
> >Seems to me that situation is still not resolved.
> And it looks like no one cares enough to make the effort to resolve this...
> I would love an open source acenic firmware.
Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as the
firmware is in a separate acenic_firmware.h file, and it just needs to have
the proper licencing statement added, saying that it is not covered by the
GPL, and then giving the information under what licence it is being
Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?