Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
- To: Jeff Garzik <email@example.com>
- Cc: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>, Greg KH <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 23:24:05 +0200
- Message-id: <20050404212405.GC3421@pegasos>
- In-reply-to: <4251A7E8.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> <20050404202706.GB3140@pegasos> <4251A7E8.email@example.com>
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >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
> >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
> Who has meaningfully contacted Alteon (probably "Neterion" now) about
> this? What is the progress of that request?
Nobody yet. I plan to do so as time allows though. But how do you respond
about the firmware blobs being declared as GPL covered in the kernel ? Who put
those firmware blobs there, and form where did they came ?
> >Jeff, since your name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care
> >this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
> Bluntly, Debian is being a pain in the ass ;-)
Thanks all the same, in this case, it is just me though, who want a clear
solution to this, and you would too, i guess, especially as it is not much
work to do it in the first place, so why is everyone making a problem of this
> There will always be non-free firmware to deal with, for key hardware.
Sure, but then you don't claim they are covered by the GPL as is currently the
case ? And i thought that the whole SCO affaire teached us to be more careful
It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude it from being
GPLed. Is this not a reasonable request ? Which should get a reasonable
answer, and not claims of being a pain in the ass, and other wild fanatical