Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
In linux.debian.kernel Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I see that the lawyers of SuSE and Red Hat do not believe this to be
>> true or at least do not consider it a problem, and this is enough for
>> me to ignore the opinion of the debian-legal@ armchair lawyers.
>This position was clear enough that broadcom and the other company holding the
>qlsomething firmware copyright, changed their licencing after sa lengthy
>lawyer consulting process.
Good for them, but not really relevant for my argument.
>The real issue here is one of freedom and DFSG and not one of legality anyway.
>Those firmware are not DFSG-free and have nothing to do in main, and this is
>the real problem.
They were not a problem before the SC was "clarified", so I do not
expect that many people will suddenly care now.