Re: Is this license acceptable for non-free?
On 13286 March 1977, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> > Without limiting the foregoing, the Software may implement third party
>> > technologies for which You must obtain licenses from parties other
>> > than AMD. You agree that AMD has not obtained or conveyed to You, and
>> > that You shall be responsible for obtaining the rights to use and/or
>> > distribute the applicable underlying intellectual property rights
>> > related to the third party technologies. These third party
>> > technologies are not licensed hereunder.
>> , ... you need to make sure that this is fullfilled. IE. do they have
>> other stuff with shit licenses included? If so THEN there may be
>> trouble, unless that license grants distribute rights.
> Given the fact that this is microprocessor microcode we are talking about,
> AMD better have conveyed to us EVERY patent license required to use their
> processors and update their microcode when we bought them.
Tell that to AMD, not me.
>> That one does not make any fun, but its limited with "If You use the
>> software".
> Which is just about every Debian system that installs firmware-nonfree, if
> "use" can be interpreted as "installing the package".
Yes, but we are talking about non-free, not main. For main we make sure
that users can just install it and be happy. For non-free thats up to
the user to (double-)check.
> Anyway, should I raise a ruckus upstream about this? I do not feel
> confortable being the maintainer of a package with the above EAR crap in its
> license.
About the patent/licenses stuff above, you should, I think.
--
bye, Joerg
00:00:11 <LupusE> goebelmeier: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html <-
warum steht hier 'mplayer'? ist das eine whishlist?
Reply to: