Re: Etch timeline is unrealistic because non-free firmware is NOT being dealt with
md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Aug 04, Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >>think not? Prove it by proposing a GR. More importantly, the release team
>> > I had such a plan, but no time to implement it currently.
>> How do you handle the fact that it is a license violation making the
>> thing illegal to distribute?
> 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.
I hope you do believe this to be true. Otherwise you would need to go
back to NM and do the licensing section again. There can be no doubt
that binaries without source or even a "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE" notice
break the GPL.
As to being a problem that depends if anyone ever sues, which is
But Debian has also made a promise that main will be free. And the
kernel breaks that.