Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The *relevant* claim I have made is that it is
> inappropriate to use our GR mechanism to attempt to *decide* whether GPLed
> drivers cause a distribution problem. The release team, the ftp team, and I
> suspect even most of the kernel team have no interest in a GR that
> authorizes any distribution of software which it at the same time asserts is
Thank you for making this claim public on this list (where it belongs).
I think it's an important point, and if you've already said this to Sven
some time ago in a different medium, then I understand the reactions of
some people towards him.
> I have previously given my own understanding of why it is not a problem for
> us to distribute GPLed firmware blobs pending license clarifications, but I
> don't see any indication that Sven is interested in understanding that POV,
> only in tilting at strawmen; so I don't intend to lose any more time on
> discussing this point beyond this single clarification email.
It has already clarified much, and since I personally trust you, I don't
insist on your repeating the explanation. However, I'd like to point
out that other people are trying to follow this discussion, too. I
don't think that your previous explanation was posted to -vote, which
IMHO is the relevant list for such discussions.
I feel it's particularly hard this time to follow the discussion; with
no other GR have there been so many "this has been said elsewhere"
(where? IRC?) statements by so many people, without trying to sum up on
a web page or similar.
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)